The Forecast of a "New Democratic Coalition"

Speculating About a “New Democratic Coalition:”
Senator Barak Obama is going to be the nominee for President of the Democratic Party. As I have said before, I believe that he will win narrowly in November, in an odd election where the Democratic candidates for the House and the Senate actually run better overall than Obama will run for President, with the Republicans losing large numbers of seats in both institutions, among the governors and in the state legislatures.

Win or lose, the “voting coalition” that supports Obama will look very different from the voting coalition of the Democratic Party of the New Deal, where African Americans and working and lower class whites found themselves in the same political party with very similar economic interests. This emergence of a “new Democratic coalition” is likely to have profound implications for the two-party system as a whole. You may like or dislike that coalition based on your personal views, but the coalition is likely to look very different from the current makeup of the Democratic Party and it will affect public policy at every level of government for years to come.

The Meaning of West Virginia and Kentucky:
West Virginia and Kentucky delivered overwhelming majorities to Hillary Clinton. Both states are “border states” to the old South – where the traditional Democratic vote is composed of socially conservative, rural and working class Whites, who appear much less sympathetic to the first “Black” candidate to run for the Presidency. Large percentages of the Clinton voters indicate on the exit polls that they intend to vote for John McCain, if Hillary Clinton is not the Democratic nominee. I believe that we should take these voters mostly at their word and not assume that they will generally return to the Democratic Party once the nomination is settled.

The vote in these two states, and the patterns in most of the states, indicates that a great many of the working class and lower class Whites will either defect to John McCain in November, or sit on the sidelines and not vote at all. Clinton is quite correct in her assertion that she could in all likelihood retain more of these voters in the Democratic Party, but most of them are likely to defect with Obama as the candidate, no matter how much he attempts to court them.

The defection of a majority of the working class White voters creates an obvious anomaly in the “new” Democratic Party. While the leadership of the major industrial unions remain almost entirely “Democratic” in their allegiances, the majority of the union members (and non-union working class Whites) in the Northeastern United States are likely to find themselves voting Republican. However, the newer civil services unions such as teachers and public employees, whose membership is better educated, more middle class, more affluent, and more “liberal” on race and social issues are likely to remain in the Democratic Party, with no apparent division between members and leadership.

The “New Democratic Coalition:”
At the moment, Barak Obama runs ahead of John McCain in the polls, even though he is losing significant segments of the of the traditional Democratic base vote to John McCain. He is obviously picking up more voters than he is losing. McCain pulls in Democrats who are older, socially conservative, less well educated, nationalistic, supportive of the military, and who harbor resentments toward African Americans, even if they are unwilling to state that sentiment to pollsters.

Obama obviously is attracting “new Democratic voters to offset his loss among the Clinton traditional Democratic voters. These segments include:

1. An overwhelming majority, perhaps as much as two to one, of “new” voters under the age of 35, who are better educated, less racially antagonistic and more socially and economic “liberal”, than the voters who are departing the Party.
2. Sizeable segments of “independents” and “dissatisfied Republicans” that are also better educated, socially and racially tolerant, and antagonistic to the Bush administration for multiple reasons. Many of these voters are thoroughly fed up with the religiosity and bellicose intolerance of many elements in the current Republican Party, and they are equally fed up with the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush Administration.

While Clinton does hold on to the traditional Democratic Party base voters, she simply does not attract anywhere the numbers of “new Democratic voters” and her appeal to the dissatisfied Independents and Republicans is much more limited. As a result, she can win overwhelming victories in States like West Virginia and Kentucky where traditional Democrats predominate, and yet she still runs behind Obama in a contest with John McCain.

The “Nightmare Scenario” for the Republicans:
The elected Republican leaders in the House and the Senate, and in the state governments, have just now begun to realize the magnitude of the electoral and political disaster that is likely to fall on their heads in November. Even as McCain is losing the election to Obama by a close margin, the overall campaign seems to point to an overwhelming Democratic victory at the polls for virtually everything else.

1. While many working and lower class White voters may defect and vote for McCain at the Presidential level, they are likely to continue to vote for Democrats for Congress and at the state and local level, partly out of loyalty to incumbents and party because they are not completely severing their ties to the Party to which they have belonged for some time.
2. There is almost certainly going to be a “surge” in Black participation this November, raising their percentage of the electorate from the traditional 13 percent to perhaps as much as 16 or 17 percent, and these voters are likely to vote “straight” Democrats at all levels of government. They will tip the outcomes in hundreds of races that might have gone Republican.
3. The “new voters” entering the election emotionally for the first time are adding huge numbers of new Democrats and “switched voters” to the polls all across the United States. The Obama campaign, perhaps the most organized campaign of all time, is going to press the already massive efforts to register these voters. These voters are likely Democratic voters at all levels of government by a very wide margin.

The combination of these three effects is likely to add an unusual “surge” in voting for Democratic candidates from the national level down to the county court house. This will result in an unusual number of “upsets” in races across the United States, with those “upsets” favoring almost universally the Democratic candidates. The realistic “possibility” of such upsets will embolden a higher caliber of funded Democratic candidates to run in areas that have been traditionally “safe” for Republicans.

The “Social Chickens” Coming Home to Roost:
The Republican Party has specialized in an ugly form of “wedge issue” campaigning for a long time, and quite successfully. They have used the “so-called wedge” issues of pro-life, anti-gays, pro-religion, and anti-gun control and the like to attract single issue voters to support Republican candidates. They do this using negative advertising with commercials and online viral marketing that distort and caricature their Democratic opponents with positions and views that they have not taken. This effort has over several decades wedded the Republican Party to the evangelical religious right wing of American politics, forcing all of their candidates, including John McCain, to “genuflect” to the criticality of these segments in the Republican nominating process.

However, there is a profound counter-reaction emerging to this Republican strategy. These “wedge issues” and the campaigns supporting them are patently offensive to a very large segment of the electorate, including many Republicans and Independents, who are better educated and more social liberal or even libertarian than the religious right wing evangelicals’ assume. The virulence of the “hate campaign” against Obama has the clear counter effect of driving more moderate and racially tolerant Independents and Republicans directly into the hands of the Democratic Party.

At the same time, George Bush and his compatriots in the White House have completely destroyed any rationale for these voters to vote Republican. While the voters are traditionally fiscally conservative, they do not share the right wing social views so dominant in the Republican Party.

Contrary to what Bush promised in 2000, this Administration has stood for a kind of fiscal irresponsibility quite unprecedented for its scale in American politics. Unfortunately for John McCain, he has promised to continue the main portion of the Bush legacy – tax cuts combined with massive deficits and a continuation, unabated, of our war effort in Iraq.

With Barak Obama as the candidate, the social liberals among Independents and unhappy Republicans have a very logical place to go with their votes. This will be viewed historically as the “great counter revolution” to the religious right in American politics – a repudiation both of the issue focus and the campaigning of the right wing in the Republican Party. Ironically, as the Republican religious right wing sees the threat of its loss growing, the virulence of their negative campaigning will increase, thus increasing the defections among a segment of their traditional base of voters.

The Policy Implications of a “New” Democratic Party:
As I have described in my earlier blogs, I believe that we stand at the beginning of a new era in American politics – an era as important as the New Deal or the Reagan Revolution. I think we are likely to see a restoration of what might be called “responsible government” in Washington, D.C., and I think we will see the public endorse that new course with an overwhelming victory for Obama in a bid for a second term. What is a new winning coalition going to look like with Barak Obama?

The Democratic Party will emerge as a younger, majority party much as it did with the New Deal under Roosevelt, and they will enjoy a huge advantage in party loyalty, which is already running strongly in their favor. The “new Democratic Party” will be unabashedly “liberal” on social issues, and experimentally interventionist on a whole range of problems. Whether it is “fiscally responsible” remains to be seen, but it will not retain some elements of the coalition four years from now if it is not fiscally responsible.

In the short run, the Republican Party will become even more captive of its “right wing, religiously oriented” base, disadvantaging the Party with candidates who are not centrist enough to win consistently. They will lose their ability to “block” Democratic initiatives in Congress in the process.

With Barak Obama as President, we will see a search for new solutions to rival the revolution of the New Deal, and Obama will be far less tied to the old organizational base of interest groups and special interests. As he says, change is on the way, even if we are not sure what that change will bring in all areas.As with earlier electoral revolutions, the impact of these changes will continue for several decades, shaping policy formation for years.

This is a profound change! I follow well what the Republicans Leaders are saying, and those who are more candid are willing to articulate the very grave fear that this is the reality that is facing them. For the most part, highly educated Republicans find little appeal in the right wing demagogy of the religious right. They put up with it because they have to. Many of them will be happy to part company with that group of voters, if Obama proves as a President that he will follow “sane” fiscal policies, and not just “economically liberal” fiscal policies. At the same time, the majority of the young simply do not subscribe to a world dominated by the fear tactics of the social and religious conservatives. Instead, they will be repelled by this inflexible and intolerant behavior, as they are demonstrating throughout the primaries by the millions.

As you sow, so shall you reap!
The Bush Administration, and his evangelical right wing base, has generously earned this rebuke by the American electorate, and John McCain will be the recipient because he has embraced enthusiastically the core of the Bush policies. McCain will distance himself somewhat from Bush, and run better because of it, but he will lose more among younger and disaffected Independents and Republicans than he gains among the disaffected Whites. Not all of the so-called “red states” are going to stay “red” in the process. Change is in the wind, and the Republican Party is going to reap the consequences that its strategists have created. The Republicans can thank the Carl Rove’s and Russ Limbaugh’s of their world for their assistance.

Just my opinion,
Gordon Black

Where is the 800 Pound Gorilla?

The 800 Pound Gorilla in the Closets of Adam, Noah and Madeleine:
These are, of course, our grandchildren. Most of you remember the times with your children or grandchildren at bedtime when they called you into their rooms to have you determine where the terrible 800 pound gorilla was hiding that night. You probably went through all the motions, searching under the bed (where it could not possibly fit), inspecting the windows and drapes, and then opening the closet to see if he had hidden there.

Reassured as to the gorilla’s absence, your child asks for another kiss and hug and promises to go to sleep. The gorilla was never there, but small children have a hard time distinguishing between fantasy and reality and the gorilla can seem very real. In any case, what they wanted the most was the additional reassurance that they were not alone and that you were there, at home, taking care of them.

There is a real 800 pound “gorilla” in this election, and right now it actually is hiding in the “closet” created by the collaboration between the media and the candidates. It does not weigh a mere 800 pounds, however. It actually weighs in at $500 Billion dollars, give or take, and it presents the amount that the Federal Government will borrow from your children and grandchildren to pay for expenditures that politicians of both political parties have decided to spend in this year. Unlike the imaginary gorilla in your children’s closet, this one is very real and it will devour the future of your children and grandchildren unless it is confronted and dealt with honestly and fairly.

The gorilla is hidden in the closet because no one – neither the candidates, nor the analysts, nor the commentators or the talk show hosts – really seem t have any interest in talking about it. The Presidential candidates, and the candidates for the House and the Senate, much prefer to tell you what they plan to give you, rather than what they plan to take away from you. They assume with great cynicism, and perhaps they are correct, that we voters care only about what government provides us today, and care nothing about what we want the government to provide our children and grandchildren.

The candidates talk about their “gifts” to their constituents endlessly – universal health care, schools that actually work, more Medicare and Social Security, generous benefits for veterans, a “victory” of some sort in Iraq and Afghanistan, a bigger and better armed military, and subsidies for oil exploration, corn or a thousand other things. The promises of “gifts” will go on forever; the costs are nowhere to be found – and this is true for all of them. With a government that is already spending $500 Billion more every year than it takes in, they ignore almost completely the $500 Billion dollar gorilla they have already created and they continue to behave as if the size of this gorilla can increase indefinitely.

Unfortunately, the truth is nowhere to be found among our political elite. As this gorilla comes out of the closet, he will devour the value of the dollar, devalue all of your families assets, place crushing tax requirements on your children and grandchildren, reduce the growth of the American economy, increase dramatically the influence of the Chinese and Oil despots over our policies, permit the easy purchase of our companies and our assets by foreign dollar holders, reduce our national security, and increase the price of every imported item that our children and grandchildren will need. The morality of doing these things to the next generations, all in the name of protecting incumbents of both parties, is horrifying; and yet all of these candidates ceremoniously wrap themselves in the robes of religion and proclaim their Christian, Jewish, or Muslim virtues while systematically stealing from the next generations.

The “Special Morality” of those in Politics:
There are good and valid reasons that the voters hate the President of the United States and the Congress. Both institutions are at the lowest level of their popularity ever. Most voters actually have a sense of morality that includes a belief that they do not have the right to ruin things for their children and grandchildren. Quite the contrary, most of us work very hard indeed in an attempt to insure that our children and grandchildren have a better future than we did.

The “self-interest” calculation of those in politics, however, turns our personal morality on its head. The incumbents seek to make their incumbency as close to invulnerable as they can, and they routinely sell access to the public treasury to those who so generously finance their incumbency through campaign contributions. The morality of the incumbent, therefore, involves the outright “sale” of our children’s future for the sole purpose of keeping them in office. We all “know” this to be true, no matter how much campaign money they spend to convince us with their propaganda that their view of morality is the same as our own.

The Differences Between McCain and Obama on the 800 Pound Gorilla:
Neither of these esteemed gentlemen have said very much about the “gorilla” that is in the closet of our children and grandchildren. However, McCain has said that he plans to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, rebuild our military, and make permanent the tax cuts engineered by the Bush Administration. Like all politicians, he decries “government waste,” which he will eliminate, without identifying which programs constitute “waste.” By implication, therefore, it is logical to assume that McCain intends to “feed” the gorilla in the closet of our children and grandchildren with ever increasing deficits.

Obama has also said almost nothing about the gorilla, except to “blame” it on the Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress, and, as we all know, blaming is a whole lot easier and less painful than taking any responsibility for reducing the deficit. Obama has said that he will restore taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year to the level they were in the Clinton Administration, including the capital gains tax. I do not have the exact figures, but that represents only a fraction of the national deficit, but a fraction is better than nothing at all. He would also provide a phased withdrawal from Iraq, and that would eventually reduce some expenditure. However, unlike McCain, Obama is promising to increase government spending in a lot of areas, and, as usual for candidates, he is unwilling to specify where the funds will come from. By implications as well, therefore, it is equally logical at this point to assume that Obama also intends to “feed” the gorilla, at least as much as McCain. The Republicans, of course, will do everything in their power to paint Obama as the “classic” “tax and spend” Democrat, although the tax and spend policies of the past eight years under Republicans are extraordinary.

Where Does that Leave the Rest of Us?
Puzzled? Frustrated? Maybe even angry! I do not expect much of anything from McCain and his Republican allies. McCain wants and will receive the backing of the Bush Administration and the evangelical, Christian right wing of the Republican Party. With such an infusion of Christian zealotry, they have managed one of the most immoral and unethical administration in my lifetime, all justified in the name of God, who forgives all of them for their lies, deceit, manipulations, and corruption. With a “God” like theirs, who needs the “Devil?” They were the ones, after all, who inherited increasing surpluses and reduced them to massive deficits in eight short years.

Unfortunately, I do expect more of Barak Obama, and I expect him to talk about this problem with more candor than he has to date. So far, I have been disappointed.

I also would expect a little more from the national media, who have nothing to lose in representing our children and grandchildren by asking the candidates more about this issue than about the trivia that seems foremost in their collective minds. In this regard, I may well be expecting much too much. Oh where are you Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Morrow when we need you?

The situation makes me long for the return of Ross Perot, who almost single handedly in 1992 and 1993 forced America to deal with this issue, demonstrating over and over again that Americans as a whole care a whole lot more about their children and grandchildren than the “politicians” that represent them. I had hoped that Mayor Bloomberg might pick up the challenge, because I know that he understands and cares about the problem, but that was not to be.

Perhaps, as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright said, Barak Obama is just another politician like the rest of them. I can’t know at this point, but time will tell, as they say. “Hope” and “change” might be nice, but a little better future for my children and grandchildren would be nicer still!

Just my opinion,

Gordon Black
P.S. Adam is eight, Noah is six, and Maddy is three.

Analyst-Progaganda

On the Absolute “Silliness” of “Analysis-Propaganda:”
If I have read or heard this question asked once, I have heard it asked at least one hundred times: “Can Barak Obama appeal to “White Voters,” particularly “working class white men?” The question is almost always answered as a rebuke: “No, of course not!” This is the answer the Clintons’ foster, and what they would have you and everyone else believe.

The question itself, and the statistical answer provided, has the clear implication that if Obama cannot prevail in this single segment of voters, somehow this disqualifies him as a successful candidate. By implication, this means that if he cannot carry a Democratic primary in West Virginia and Kentucky, he cannot win in November in the General Election. This is an argument that Hillary Clinton is making passionately after the West Virginia vote, and it will be a constant refrain among her supporters on the talk shows and in the media. This is what I call, “analysis-propaganda.”

On the average of national polls carried daily on Real Clear Politics, Barak Obama is currently close to 49 percent of the popular vote and approximately four and a half points ahead of Senator John McCain. If he runs this well in November, he will be the next President of the United States regardless of the answer to the very silly propaganda question posed above. Since Black voters are at best 14 to 16 percent of the voting electorate in 2008 (13 percent in a normal year), I would assume that this answers the question about White Voters better than anything else I can say. Obama cannot get from 14 to 16 percent up to 49 percent without White voters, and they are not all “wet behind the ears” White younger voters or “pointy headed” White intellectuals, as the Clinton proponents suggest.

In order to be elected, Barak Obama must put together an electoral coalition that exceeds anything John McCain can muster. He is absolutely not required to include a majority of any particular group to achieve that objective. The notion that his failure to appeal to a particular group is necessarily fatal to his goal is pure propaganda almost always put into the market by an “analyst” who has some ties to one of the other candidates.

The Painful Realignment of Poorly Educated Whites and Blacks:
The Democratic Party does have a problem, and it has had this problem for a long time. Barak Obama did not cause the problem, but his skin color and values are the triggers for the emergence of the problem to the front ranks of Democratic and national politics. The problem is this: the single segment of Americans most threatened by the upward mobility of African Americans is, and has been, the less well educated Whites, particular the males who compete with Blacks in the job market. Every poll on race for the past 50 years has shown the same pattern of findings. It isn’t new at all, but what is new is the emergence of a Black presidential candidate within the Democratic Party who actually has a chance to win.

Both of these voting segments, Blacks and working class Whites have been a part of the Democratic Party since the Great Depression, in the coalition forged by Roosevelt. The first large break with the pattern was the schism that emerged in the South after the Voting Rights Act of 1965. As Blacks registered and started participating in politics for the first time in the old South, lower income and less well educated Whites began a migration away from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party all over the South. Basically, the poorer and less well educated White voters deserted the Democratic Party in the South, leaving a coalition of newly enfranchised Black voters and better educated and more affluent Whites, who were not threatened so much by Black upward mobility. The solidly Democratic South became the solidly Republican South in many areas, where Whites were still a majority. The Republicans have worked this constitutency with the symbolic issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the economic welfare of working class Whites -- gun control, patriotism, religious appeals, abortion, gay rights, and the like, the so-called "wedge issues" that are powerful enough to get voters to vote for people who do not represent their economic interests at all.

The problem now, of course, is that the contest between Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama has opened this wound in the Democratic Party again, but this time in the older industrialized states of the North. When Obama captured more than 90 percent of Black voters, Clinton needed to find her support among the remaining elements in the party, and she focused her campaign directly at older White voters, particularly women, working class and poorer Whites, and Hispanics, which is another group that has had tensions with African Americans for much the same reason. West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Michigan typify this mixture. However, Obama is still leading in the polls of Democrats and winning within the Democratic Party as a whole, despite the fact that he is not winning within every particular bloc. As of today, he is running five to seven percentage points better than Clinton among all Democrats nationwide.

Winning is Not About Appealing to Everyone:
Looking to the November election, Obama is currently running ahead of John McCain, although you would not know it when you listen to the partisan pundits who occupy the talking heads positions on television, or, in fact, to Hillary Clinton.

How can he possibly be ahead, you say, when he is losing among less well educated White males, whom some really ridiculous “analyst” declares emphatically is the key to the election? Ignore these idiots! Just ignore their silliness! They are mostly propagandists hiding in analysts clothing, hired by television more for their connections than their wisdom and serving their preferred candidate or party with questions that serve their “interests,” and certainly not yours.

Obama is putting together a new coalition, and that new coalition is likely to become the Democratic Party of the future and it will be significantly different from the Democratic Party of the Past. You might not like the composition of that coalition, and that is certainly “fair”, but it is a coalition that is clearly large enough to put him in the lead, and even keep him there all the way to end. His coalition includes African Americans, better educated Whites, young and old, males and females, and middle class voters who are royally tired of the old politics, the ugly strategies and tactics of Carl Rove and Company and the pure lunacy of the fiscal and war policies of the Bush Administration. Obama also runs well among voters without partisan affiliations – the so-called “independents” -- and voters who think of themselves as Republican who are disaffected with the policies of the Bush Administration. There will be many more Whites in this Coalition than there will be Blacks, and their voters are certainly as important and consequential as the voters of working class Whiles in the industrial North.

There are enough of these voters, and they are motivated sufficiently, to give Obama and his campaign all of the money and voters they will ever need to swamp the Republican war machine – and the Republicans know it. There are enough of these voters to win, clearly, so don’t worry too much when one of the learned idiots on television tries to sell you on the latest “soccer Mom” theory of voting and coalition building. West Virginia and Kentucky Democrats are not America as a whole, and Obama is still in the lead without them. Working class White voters are certainly an important voting bloc, but Obama is able to muster a majority of all voters without a majority in this particular segment.

In the end, the “Obama coalition” will be a “new coalition” that is demographically somewhat different from the current composition of the Democratic Party. When the election is over in November, there are going to be some new Blue States that were not in the Democratic camp in previous elections, and there will be enough of these Blue States to win if Obama continues to run with the national polling numbers that he currently enjoys. No presidential candidate in history has led in the popular vote nationwide by four to five points – Obama’s current lead -- and lost the national election.

Nonpartisan “analysts” cannot today foresee all of the implications of the emergence of such a coalition, but if it is successful in winning the White House in November, the implications are likely to persist, to the detriment of the Republican Party, for a long time to come. When one political party wins a clear majority of the next generation of voters, as Roosevelt did in the 1932 through 1936 elections and Reagan did from 1980 through 1984, the other political party will have troubles up and down the line in American politics, and for decades.

This is what Barak Obama is threatening to do in 2008, and it thoroughly frightening to the virulent “right wing” in American politics. They will use every weapon, however ugly, at their disposal – lies, half truths, guilt by association, distortions of the record, and so on -- so you had better get ready for a fight. In doing so, of course, they will evoke Jesus leading them into battle and sing “Onward Christian Soldiers” the way Bush did while leading America on his “personal crusade” into Iraq. When you have “God” behind your every act, all is forgiven in his name. Isn’t that what Osama bin Laden says about Allah?

Just my opinion,

Gordon Black

Reality and the Election of 2008

Reality and the 2008 Election:
I follow the election pretty closely, as you know. As I listen, both to the candidates and the networks, I am struck by the gap between what they are discussing and the reality that I think is facing the United States as we move forward into the future. Essentially, we now have all three candidates committing to the famous Bush(1) pledge; “Read my lips, no new taxes (on people making less than $250,000). For the two Democrats, that pledge is disingenuous, to say the least, since they have equally pledged to allow the tax cuts enacted earlier to lapse and that will result in increased taxes on most people who pay taxes in 2011.

The next image that comes into my mind is the vision of all of the candidates, and most of the news people, standing beside a gasoline pump and decrying the terrible impact of the price of fuel on the consumer. “Oh woe is me! Isn’t it terrible?” That seems to be the lament of almost everyone, but I cannot recall a single serious commentary or comment by any of the candidates on the causes of high fuel prices or on what might be done to correct the situation, other than the usual promise (in the past, empty) to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil.

Since none of the candidates wish to raise taxes, and since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are no where near the end under the best of the scenarios, that leaves for us a simple question: what is the size of deficits and the debt that these candidates—all three of them-- think are the limits of acceptability?

We are now borrowing between $400 and $500 a billion a year, mostly from the Chinese and the Oil Producing Countries—to finance all of our adventures, both domestic and abroad. Both of the Democrats promise a whole raft of new government spending and McCain promises a continuing military effort in the Middle East, with renewal of our depleted military resources at the same time. Should we conclude, therefore, that all three candidates will follow courses of action that will escalate our deficits and accumulated debt, increasing the debt payments dramatically over time? Given what they are saying, I think we have to conclude that no one is particularly concerned about the deficit and accumulated debt except to the extent that they can blame it on the Bush Administration.

The accumulating debt is simply a way for the government to print money rather than increase taxes. We know that the excessive printing of a currency creates a supply of money that exceeds demand, and therefore drives down the price of that currency in the marketplace. That is precisely what is happening with the dollar, and it is the behavior of third world dictatorships that emasculate the economies by printing money.

The Decline of the Dollar (1):
The dollar has declined from .98 cents to the Euro, shortly after Bush took office, to a low of $1.60 per Euro reached recently. Most of the oil imported to the United States is purchased in dollars. Assuming unchanged international demand for oil (an untrue assumption), a very substantial portion of the increasing price of oil and gasoline is a direct result of the decreasing purchasing power of the weakened and devalued dollar.

The same increasing prices are true for virtually everything we purchase from abroad. As the dollar declines, prices go up and we have an “inflation” driven by whatever policies drive the value of the dollar downward. Although most voters will probably never understand the argument, the increasing price of oil combined with the higher prices for all imported goods because of the declining dollar, is nothing more than a “tax increase” in another form. These are the prices Americans pay for fiscal irresponsibility on a massive scale by the politicians in both political parties. This is the “politically advantageous” way to pay for the deficits and the accumulating debt that incumbents of both parties so willingly take on. The great advantage to the candidates of this form of tax is, however, that it is very difficult to blame it on the people who make the decisions. Politicians of both parties love to give benefits or the promise of benefits to “current voters” where they can transfer the payment of those benefits to “future voters,” i.e., to our children and grandchildren. They have learned the very unfortunate truth that current voters are much more concerned about current benefits than they are about what we leave for future generations.

The Decline of the Dollar (2):
When we “print” more money that there is a demand for it, the price that people are willing to pay for the dollar declines. Similarly, when we lower interest rate returns on the dollar dramatically, that makes the dollar less valuable than other currencies that do not lower interest rates, and the demand for the dollar declines relative to those currencies. Finally, the dollar comes under pressure simply from speculators who buy and sell currencies for large holders of currencies. If it appears likely that the United States will continue to follow policies that produce massive deficits and long term debt, the speculators are likely to “devalue” the amount that they are willing to pay for the dollar vs. other currencies based on what their “expectations” are. Where does this take us? Given that we continue to follow these policies, I would bet on a continually decline in the dollar, perhaps following a short rally based on the “possibility” that a new administration might behave responsibly – a real long shot, if I ever saw one.

The question is, of course, where does this end? I think this is one of those questions for which no one has an answer, but where we all have a gnawing concern that it will all end very badly—both for the United States as a whole, and for our children and grandchildren. By the time we have the answer; it will be too late to do very much about it, one way or the other.

Great Empires Come and Go:
There simply is no guarantee that the United States will retain its position as the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world. All of the “great empires” have come to an end eventually, often as a result of behaviors internally that undermined the basis of their strength. As I look at what we are doing in the Middle East, wasting a huge portion of our national treasure on a useless war brought on by a small band of arrogant, self righteous, and terribly misguided leaders in Washington, DC, I am struck by the wisdom and self control of our adversaries – China, Russia, and the Oil Cartel – who are piling up our wealth and spending it on enterprises that increase their economic strength relative to ours. As the slogan goes, “they are laughing at us all the way to their banks,” and with very good reason. As they boom with their forbearance, we begin the process of withering, with our misplaced priorities and overblown militaristic zeal.

Broken Democracy:
Candidates of both parties are brought to their knees during campaigns to “genuflect” to democracy and “Love of Country,” elevating the wearing of a flag pin to a position of national significance. They are also brought to their knees to “genuflect” to God, Jesus Christ, and a few other deities to prove how pious they are. When we value our candidates for their sleeve worn piety and flag waving patriotism more than for their intelligence and competence, you know America is in trouble. We have had eight years of flag waving, evangelical piety, and great crusades, led by men and women who asset their moral superiority and patriotism at every opportunity, even as the death toll rises due to their basic military and diplomatic incompetence. The huge military and industrial complexes that Eisenhower warned us about in 1959, and the oil cartel, have profited mightily from this Administration, and they applaud and lend their support to John McCain while they count their winnings in the real hope that he will keep up the process for another four years.

With the sole exception of the campaign of Barak Obama, public policy is directly for sale in the United States, purchased through campaign contributions to the most likely winners and now through the hiring of an ex-President for very expensive speeches and consultancies. When the election is over, the winners—usually incumbents-- return to Washington DC and the state capitals and they proceed to deliver to the groups that provided the funds that made their election possible. What they deliver is more funding for their sponsors and more deficits and debt for the voters, since there appears to be no active way to constrain the mutual desire of the Republicans and Democrats to overspend and where demands for government money from their “client groups” far outstrip the supply available through taxes.

I have no way of knowing what Barak Obama will do if he is elected. He will be, however, the first modern President elected without funding from the special interest complexes that today buy American policies that they profit from. He has not sold a seat at the table to every economic interest that wants a piece of the American pie, delivered at the expense of the taxpayers. It is an experiment, and maybe it will turn out badly, although it is hard for me to imagine how anything could turn out worse than the election of 2000.

Just my opinion,

Gordon Black

Losing with Grace and Dignity

My apologies for the delay between messages. We have been traveling, and we have finally landed in our apartment in Paris where we have easy access to the Internet and the media. It does amaze me at times how integrated we are into the news network where ever we go. I really appreciate all of the comments and encouragement some of you have provided me. I am enjoying the process of writing so regularly, and it gets easier as I go along. Equally, it gives me a wonderful opportunity to communicate with many old friends, and some new ones, and that has proven very nice as well. So, thank you!

Losing with Grace and Dignity:
Senator Hillary Clinton has lost. The prolonged primary struggle is all but over, except for the fact that she, her advisors and supporters cannot yet accept the reality of losing. They are still looking for one last chance, one long shot final bite at the apple, and they appear willing to do almost anything to reverse an outcome that has been moving against her for a while now. The issue now is “how” she will lose, not “whether.” Will she go out with grace and dignity, supporting the Democratic Party, or will she engage in a continuing war that inflicts even more damage on the Democratic chances in November. The existing polarization of the voting electorate has been bad enough, with large segments of each camp threatening to defect to McCain if their candidate loses, but the continuation of this out to the Convention will be far worse.

Unfortunately, all of the scuttlebutt at the moment, inside and outside their campaign, points toward the conclusion that the Clintons are looking at the so-called “nuclear option” as a way to reverse the judgment of the electorate. The "nuclear option" calls for the National Credentials Committee, on which she has strong support, to reverse the decision made earlier on Florida and Michigan and seat those delegations using the voting outcome to determine the distribution of supporters. I do not need to tell you how unfair that would be, given that Obama and the other candidates played by the rules that the DNC set up, taking their names off the ballot and not campaigning.

Observers are calling it “the nuclear option” because any fair and reasonable person will recognize the utter devastation that this tactic will produce inside the Democratic Party. With near certainty, this action, if successful, will provoke a convention war that will make the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago look like a picnic. The use of this tactic to win what she could not win fairly in the primaries will tear the Democratic Party apart and almost certainly guarantee a Republican victory in November.

What Does This Say About Senator Hillary Clinton?
Personally, I think any sane and reasonable person ought to be profoundly troubled about what this "considered course of action" says about Hillary Clinton and some of her advisors as an ethical human beings. We all admire the spirit of a good fighter, and she has proven that beyond any question. However, when a person pursues a course of action that benefits primarily themselves to the detriment of nearly everyone else, that person moves beyond of boundaries of enlightened self-interest into the realm of destructive narcissism. It makes one wonder if there is anything that Hillary Clinton will not do to win, and that is an issue that has plagued the Clintons for a long time?

Up to this point, my own opinion is that this primary contest has been hard fought, but mostly fairly fought. The policy differences between Senators Obama and Clinton are relatively minor. With small policy differences, it is not surprising that much of the campaign centered on issues of character, judgment, experience, associations, and personal history. These differences are more easily discernible than are the differences on policy, and they were of more interest to the media, who cannot hold an audience by repeating endlessly the policy positions of the candidates when there is little difference. Neither of the candidates attacked the other in terms that were outrageous. There was negative campaigning, but much less than what we have come to expect of most political campaigns, and certainly much less that either candidate will experience at the hands of the Republican “attack machine” in the fall.

However, this campaign now needs to come to an end, and it would be far better for everyone, including Senator Clinton in the long run, if she ended this campaign with grace and dignity. If she chooses to drag this out through a fight on the Credentials Committee and then on to the Democratic National Convention in August, she will still lose but she will lose leaving a bitter taste in everyone’s mouth that will be remembered for a long time to come.

The Response of the Democratic Leadership:
I actually do not think Senator Clinton is going to be successful with her “nuclear strategy”. It is so clearly not in the interest of the leadership of the Democratic Party, and it is not in the interest of the Super delegates – not even the ones who are currently supporting Hillary Clinton. While no one is likely to attempt to force Hillary Clinton out of the game, I believe that you will see an acceleration of the declarations of the Super delegates as it becomes clear to them that the outcome of the election is already determined. The more “elder statesmen” of the Democratic Party are just too smart to support an effort to reverse the outcome on Florida and Michigan in the Credentials Committee. A vote may occur, but the motion will lose, or any seating that might occur will leave the margin between the two candidates as it is. Anything else would be a degree of political insanity and self-destructiveness that exceeds what I can imagine for the members of that committee.

The Irreversible Tipping Point of Building a Majority:
Another consideration is that Barak Obama may have already reached the tipping point in his quest for delegates such that the pressure to join his “team” simply becomes irresistible. This is largely a “perceptual” issue – the belief that the outcome is virtually impossible to reverse.

Listening to the media, I think that point has already passed for more and more delegates. Obama is only 11 delegates behind Clinton in Super delegates as of this morning, and his campaign is gaining Super delegates on a daily basis. Many delegates will not want to be left off the Obama ship when it leaves the wharf, and the pressure on these delegates will increase as he moves closer to an outright win, which he will with every primary, regardless of the outcome.

The Alternative to Grace and Dignity:
Hillary Clinton today faces not a choice between winning and losing; but a choice on how she will lose – with grace and dignity or badly. I would wish for her that she chooses the former, but I see no sign of it at the moment. There is an increasing desperation about this campaign; a sense that if they lose, they will all lose everything.

I suspect that this is true for both of the Clintons. Hilary Clinton is losing the Presidency that she seems to have thought was hers by right. She would have been the first female President of the United States, transcending the success of her husband and putting him in the background. For Bill Clinton, he would return to the White House and travel the world as one of the most prominent and powerful people in the world. It is truly heady stuff, and a terrible thing to lose to an upstart African-American that not many people even knew before the campaign began. At the same time, none of us know what discussions are taking place behind the public scenes of the campaign, and those discussions may well involve negotiations that would provide Clinton a graceful exit, perhaps in exchange for the Vice Presidency or some other considerations.

If she ends this war now, every effort will be made to heal the breaches in the Democratic Party, and that would certainly include reaching out to her and some of her key supporters. Every effort would also be made to provide roles for the Clinton that could help to end the divisions that have emerged in this long campaign. However, if this continues, it will degenerate into more ugliness, and the outcome must inevitably be the political isolation of the Clintons through the campaign and into the future. Taking this out to the bitter end will make it very difficult to achieve a reconciliation that might pull the Clintons into the effort in the fall.

What Senator Clinton does not seem to understand, with her "Rocky" analogy, is there is such a thing as “wanting something too much,” which usually means wanting it so much that there are few boundaries around what one will do to achieve it. People have long suspected this of the Clintons, but the current Clinton strategy may confirm it in ways that will rebound to her detriment over the long run.

Just my opinion,

Gordon Black