The Geithner Plan and Congressional Approval

Via the Economist's Free Exchange blog, we have Steve Waldman, who is upset about the Geithner plan's ability to circumvent congressional approval. Here is Mr. Waldman:

In my view, the Geithner's PPIP includes two mechanisms intended to ensure that "private investors" offer substantially inflated bids for "legacy" assets, and the net cost of the plan will be comparable to that of TARP. I might be wrong about that, but I might be right. Much of the risk will be due to loan guarantees offered by the FDIC. Is there any legal basis for using the FDIC this way? Aren't the laws describing how the FDIC is and is not supposed to behave?

And isn't Congress supposed to have the power of the purse? A loan guarantee is a contingent liability, a cost in real terms. Can the US Treasury spend money without Congressional approval, as long as it promises to spend only if a coin flip comes up heads? That's exactly what the Geithner plan (along with the scandalous but already active "Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program" program) does. Is that even Constitutional?...

It seems to me that committing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars should still be considered a serious business. It seems to me that if Congress wouldn't approve the Geithner plan, in a democracy, that ought to have some meaning, and not just get written off as populist outrage and then extralegally ignored.

So I'll ask again, who passed the Geithner plan? What deliberative assembly gave the plan a pass? What's that you say? The stock market went up by nearly 500 points when it was announced on Monday? Oh. I guess the buys have it, then.

First of all, I'm curious as to why Waldman chose to put "private investors" in quotes in the first sentence. Is the implication here that they are not really private investors, which would be a ridiculous claim, or that the $35 billion that the private sector is kicking in for the bailout plan isn't enough, which would be equally ridiculous. I assume the latter is what Waldman is implying here, to which my reply is that I think any larger of a ratio would act as a disincentive for investors to buy up these assets at all, which would ruin the plan before it even started.

On to the main point about Congressional approval. Many folks have been throwing around the term "giveaway," which is understandeable, but there is a considerable difference between offering subsidies directly and offering them in the form of no-recourse loans, which is what's going on here. It is true that this could backfire if most of these assets turn out to be bad, in which case the loans would be forgiven and the government would lose lots of money. On the other hand, if these assets turn out to be good and rise in value, the investors profit, the government gets paid back with interest. This would be good.

Of course, Waldman's concern stems from the uncertainty. There has been considerable outcry from the left and right regarding the effectiveness of the Geithner bailout plan and it seems that the consensus (at least among mainstream pundistry) is that the plan will fail. See Paul Krugman, whose opposition is loud, proud and almost irritating (if not for the fact that the man has attained almost 'do-no-wrong status' in my eyes). So then why commit all of this money to a plan that may or may not work, at best? The reason is because we have to. First, let's recap why the plan is necessary (Congressional approval or not0. I have stated earlier that I think the Geithner plan is a necessary step, politically, in that considering the alternatives (nationalization or the original Paulson plan), it is the easiest to kick-start without causing massive social (and market) upheaval. See Mark Thoma and Brad Delong for more on this. In fact, let's throw in a quote from Thoma, just to drive the point home:

So I do not take a binary (or, I suppose, trinary), either/or approach to the proposals where I think one plan will work and the others will fail miserably. All three plans have their pluses and minuses. The politics of the Paulson plan make it a non-starter, I have no quarrel with the view that it constitutes a giveaway that is not justified, so the only way the Paulson plan will work is if we can convince people that equity stakes or some other mechanism makes the plan sufficiently equitable. I prefer nationalization because it provides a certainty in terms of what will happen that the other plans do not provide, the Geithner plan in particular, but it also appears to suffer from the political handicap of appearing (to some) to be "socialist," and there are arguments that the Geithner plan provides better economic incentives than nationalization (though not everyone agrees with this assertion).

More to the point now, what about Congressional approval? Mustn't the appropriation of all these funds for an iffy plan require a democratic approval process? Well, this is a tricky issue. One that Matt Yglesias actually wrote about several days ago, complaining that the no one addressed the topic. Here's Matt:

One aspect of the Geithner plan that I think people aren’t focusing enough attention on is that unlike the other main alternative approaches, it can be executed without further congressional approval. The reason is that there are federal agencies with a standing authority to make loans. And though the plan does have a potentially giveaway structure, technically what’s being offered aren’t subsidies but no recourse loans. Or to put it another way, the subsidies are in the form of no recourse loans rather than direct appropriations, so the government has the authority to move forward under existing TARP legislation and other laws. That, I think, clearly explains the somewhat byzantine structure of the plan’s operations and is also, if you’re sitting in the West Wing, a considerable advantage over a nationalization plan that would require large additional appropriations to cover the debts of nationalized institutions.

There is the legal side. Of course, as Yglesias notes later, this can be considered much too technical, and almost a cheap way of getting around legislation. However, I would like to argue that given the current economic and political climate, it is necessary to pass this as quickly as possible. As Krugman notes, "Every month that we fail to come to grips with the economic crisis another 600,000 jobs are lost." Is this enough of a reason to warrant such actions by the Obama administration? One can at least argue the case.

Furthermore, and let me just say that the following is not an argument to side-step Congressional approval, but consider the historical use of "presidential prerogative," a term that should be prevalent by now; in the midst of impending crisis, the executive takes measures that often bypass boundaries set forth by the Constitution. Lincoln did it, Roosevelt did it, Bush did it (though the latter isn't the greatest example). Again, it is of course arguable whether such prerogatives are both a) applicable now, and b) whether they are merited at all, ever. Something to think about, though.

Obama Listens to Complaints and Abandons Veterans Private Health Insurance Plan

Remember all that recent hullabaloo regarding Obama's proposal to require that Veterans use private health insurance to cover combat-related injuries, as opposed to the longstanding government insurance, Veterans' Administration, and VA hospitals? Well, it looks like after mounting concerns, letters to Obama from House members (Democrat and Republican) and meetings with veteran group representatives, the administration has decided to drop the plan.

Isn't it great that we have a leader that listenes to concerns of the parties and stakeholders of a particular policy proposal? And one that takes in opinions of all experts, regardless of party lines, before making a decision?

Bipartisan Politics

I more or less agree with what Paul Krugman is saying here:

You see, this isn’t a brainstorming session — it’s a collision of fundamentally incompatible world views. If one thing is clear from the stimulus debate, it’s that the two parties have utterly different economic doctrines. Democrats believe in something more or less like standard textbook macroeconomics; Republicans believe in a doctrine under which tax cuts are the universal elixir, and government spending is almost always bad.

Obama may be able to get a few Republican Senators to go along with his plan; or he can get a lot of Republican votes by, in effect, becoming a Republican. There is no middle ground.

I agree that it's true that Obama has made way too many concessions in the current stimulus plan to pave the way for his doctrine of bipartisan cooperation. As it stands, I believe, the Senate bill contains some $300 billion in tax cuts, which I'm sure is more than Obama had initially wanted. I think on the one hand that it is admirable that he is geniunely attempting to commit to his word / his lofty ideal / his political platform during the election of ending the era of partisan politics (or at least ushering in an era of cooperation). Yet, after all the concessions, we know what happened in the Assembly. If Obama is going to water down the stimulus in favor of an ideal -- if he's going to include big business tax cuts, remove provisions for family planning, etc, it would be nice if there would be some actual, noticeable political results at the very least. I think it's time for Obama to break out the big guns.

Is it too much to expect out political leaders to work together?

McCain's VP

It was very clever for McCain to select Sarah Palin as the vice presidential candidate on his ticket. According to Economists for Obama:

Passing over Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, women either too liberal or too smart to join a likely losing ticket, quick-draw Johnny went for a woman he's met only once (as far as I can work out from the press reports). So, in a profoundly cynical move, the man who claims to put "country first" in fact put national security, the economy and pretty much everything else last and picked Sarah Palin. He thinks she checks off two dumb communities in a way Lieberman, Ridge, Romney and the other has-beens who would actually accept the VP job cannot. Of course, to really check off women, they have to ignore the fact that she's rabidly pro-life, thinks global warming is still a questionable hypothesis and has no knowledge of international affairs.

Indeed, McCain assumes that he will be able to pick up a large chunk of young, female voters with his choice of VP. He thinks he will be able to capture groups of swing voters, or those that would have voted for Hillary but were unsure of Obama.

Our country is not that stupid. Everybody sees through this ploy and I am hoping that it has the adverse effect of hurting his campaign more than helping it.

Update: Tyler Cowen says that liberals should not fall into the trap of harping on Palin's lack of experience in the public arena. He says:

Most American voters do not themselves know much detail about foreign affairs and their vision of an experienced leader does not require such knowledge. Was it demanded from Reagan? Doesn't everyone agree that Cheney and Rumsfeld knew plenty? Rightly or wrongly, many American voters will view Palin's stint as mayor of small town, her background in sports, her role in a beauty contest (yes), her trials raising teenage children, and her decision to stick with her priinciples and have a Downs Syndrome baby as all very valuable and relevant forms of experience. The more the word "experience" is repeated, no matter what the context, the more it will hurt Obama. Palin needs to appear confident and capable on TV and in the debates, but her ticket is not going to lose votes if she cannot properly spell Kyrgyzstan or for that matter place it on a map.

Cowen has a point here. However, the fact that Palin was chosen as McCain's VP negates his criticism of Obama's experience. He cannot possibly continue to raise the experience argument against his opponent when he has selected someone like Palin for his team (apparently, someone who he has met only once!).

Also, Kevin Drum has a post here that brings together some information on Palin's views on some major campaign issues. Enjoy! Here is my favorite:

Joe Klein on taxes: Palin exploded her state's coffers by imposing a windfall profits tax on the oil companies...sort of — no, exactly — like the proposal Barack Obama has made and John McCain has attacked. Apparently, she also supported the Bridge to Nowhere, despite her disclaimer at today's event. So how does McCain explain putting a tax-raising porker on his ticket?

Update 2: Here is a Republican Alaskan State Senator and an Alaskan editorial (respectively) on Sarah Palin (both via Brad Delong)

McCain's choice catches politicians by surprise: State Senate President Lyda Green, from Palin's hometown of Wasilla, said she thought it was a joke.... "She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" Green told the Anchorage Daily News. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"...

And the editorial...

No doubt about it. In fact, as the governor herself acknowledged in her acceptance speech, she never set out to be involved in public affairs. She has never publicly demonstrated the kind of interest, much less expertise, in federal issues and foreign affairs that should mark a candidate for the second-highest office in the land. Republicans rightfully have criticized the Democratic nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, for his lack of experience, but Palin is a neophyte in comparison; how will Republicans reconcile the criticism of Obama with the obligatory cheering for Palin? Or will everyone just be forced to drop the subject? That’s not a comforting possibility. Although no one has the perfect resume and experience isn't everything, it is an important quality to weigh. Palin, if elected vice president, would ascend to the presidency if anything should happen to McCain, who turned 72 today.

Here is Ezra Klein:

Karl Rove:

With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he’s been a governor for three years, he’s been able but undistinguished. I don’t think people could really name a big, important thing that he’s done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America. And again, with all due respect to Richmond, Virginia, it’s smaller than Chula Vista, California; Aurora, Colorado; Mesa or Gilbert, Arizona; north Las Vegas or Henderson, Nevada. It’s not a big town. So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I’m really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States?

Interestingly, the Richmond Metropolitan Area is about twice the size of Alaska. And three years are more years than two.

More from Ezra Klein (on foreign policy!)

From a March 2007 interview:

ABM: We've lost a lot of Alaska's military members to the war in Iraq. How do you feel about sending more troops into battle, as President Bush is suggesting?

Palin: I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq. I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place; I want assurances that we are doing all we can to keep our troops safe.

So in March 2007, Sarah Palin wasn't paying enough attention to Iraq in order to have a particular opinion on the surge, or whether the administration's definition of "success" constituted a viable exit strategy. Meanwhile, McCain's whole campaign is predicated on the primacy of Iraq and the War on Terror -- the "transcendantal" nature of the threat that should overwhelm most all other considerations Which gets to the weird thing about the Palin pick.

There's plenty more, but I think I'll leave it at that for now.

Inconsistency

Just watched Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention. First off, I thought it was a terrific speech. Obama is clearly a gifted orator and had the crowd generally in tears. This is something we rarely saw with Kerry or Gore before him.

Secondly, it amuses me how pundits, immediately following the address, put forth the critique that it felt more like a "laundry list" than a memorable and historical landmark in speeches the likes of Kennedy's "New Frontier." So, critics first accused Obama of being too good an orator, too abstract, and riddling his speeches with platitudes and lofty ideals, neglecting policy details. Now, they say he has a "laundry list" and offers no lofty or memorable catch phrases.

I think I smell desperation...

The Charge of the Light Brigade

It seems that Russia might have other places to uphold its national's rights. Could we see military action ahead of the 2017 lease ending the Russian navy's base at Sevastopol? Is it right to assume that this date marks a 'deadline' for Russia to repeat Georgia in by lobbing the Crimea off of Ukraine or that any action along the same lines is inevitable for that matter? What about Moldova and Transnistria?

Round 2?

How hard would a Concert of Democracies rock out?

Probably pretty hard. But no one would agree on who to hire for security (who cracks fewer heads, Blackwater or Hells Angels?) or how much the tickets would be all the while the UN posts a noise ordinance that all the 'bands' are willing to pay the fine for.

Troop Withdrawl

Yglesias points us here:

The Iraqi government has said it is proposing U.S. troops end patrols of Iraqi towns and villages by the middle of next year and U.S. combat troops leave Iraq by 2011.

But Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a visit to Baghdad last week that no final agreement had been reached. The Bush administration has sought to steer clear of fixed timetables in negotiating the agreement.

Is there still any argument to whether Maliki really wants us gone?

More Policy Details!

I agree with Matthew Yglesias here:

Joe Klein visited a focus group:

“Change” as a theme is over. Too vague. And Obama’s rhetoric has begun to seriously cut against him. “No more oratory,” one woman said. “Give us details.”

I always wonder about this stuff. I mean, it’s inconceivable to me that this woman is genuinely yearning to learn more about the details of Obama’s policy agenda. If she actually wanted to know, she could, you know, look into it. She could learn all about the differences between auctioning emissions permits and giving them away, about the implications of having the federal government provide reinsurance for catastrophic medical expenses, about the case for a permanent R&D tax credit, etc., etc. But all indications are that most people find politics boring, and policy details duller still. And swing voters, which is what this was a focus group of, are least interested of all.

My guess is that people’s self-reports in these kind of situations are almost valueless. People want to express opinions that they think will be validated by others. The idea that Obama isn’t specific enough is both widespread and sounds high-minded, so it’s something that people looking to say something bad about him say even though I don’t see any evidence that his speeches are less specific than anyone else’s.

Absolutely true. If someone actually cared to go and discover more in-depth policy details of a particular candidate, the information is certainly available! For example, I rarely actually watch Obama or McCain speak on TV, and yet I consider myself more than adequately informed about the details of their economic policies. This does seem like an instance of searching for negative qualities in Obama. It is just like when he first announced his candidacy. Recall that most pundits accused him of not having enough experience to fill the role of the presidency. This was the biggest concern. Also note how we don't seem to hear this argument much anymore.

Also, I acknowledge that Obama has a tendency to offer platitudes and speak in the abstract, but certainly no moreso than his opponent.

Another Morning Coffee with Brad Delong - Health Care Edition

Another great post from Brad Delong. He discusses the current health care crisis, the presidential nominees' proposed solutions, and his critique. Watch the video and read along!

The Controversy over McCain's Homes

I am sure this is old news already, but the internet is brewing with commentary regarding the number of homes that John McCain owns. Evidently, it is such a large number that even he cannot recall.

Here is Yglesias considering the possibilities:

I’ve seen a lot of liberals giving John McCain a hard time about not knowing how many homes he owns. But this is a genuinely difficult question to answer! There’s the case of his two-for-one condo in Phoenix, for example. And there’s also the tricky question of McCain “Hidden Valley Ranch” house situation. The Cindy Hensley McCain Family Trust owns 11455 E Hidden Valley Road, 11445 E Hidden Valley Road, 11415 E Hidden Valley Road, and 11405 E Hidden Valley Road. But is that four properties or is it one property? What’s more, according to McCain there are six houses on the property. So that ranch situation could be anywhere from six houses to one house, depending on how you look at it. Combined with the condo situation, we’re now in the 2-7 house range.

UPDATE: And of course you have to consider the case of Meghan McCain’s loft in Phoenix. Her parents paid $700,000 for it and as a graduation present let her live there, but technically they’re the owners. Does that count as one of McCain’s houses or doesn’t it?

I think he eventually ends up counting five. This, of course, does not count his various ranch properties as different homes, nor does it count his loft in Phoenix or Meghan McCain's loft.

More on the Disintegration of Civil Liberties

Via Mark Thoma:

I'm with libertarians on this one, this goes too far. I didn't think Americans would ever put up with the kinds of invasions of privacy that we've allowed in the name of preventing terrorism, but I was wrong:

Police to Track All Vehicles into New York City, by David Theroux: The New York City Police Department is now planning on tracking the movements of all vehicles entering Manhattan in a federally funded program designated “Operation Sentinel.” Of course, this massive assault on privacy is being done to track and screen out “terrorism.” And according to the Associated Press:

Police say Operation Sentinel would rely on license-plate readers, radiation detectors and closed-circuit cameras installed at the 16 bridges and four tunnels serving Manhattan. About a million vehicles drive onto the island every day. The vehicle data would be analyzed by computers programmed with information about suspicious vehicles...

....New York City police are admitting that since they neither know who are actual terrorists or how to find them, everyone is a criminal suspect and will be monitored in the stereotypical bureaucratic belief that extracting information on everyone will somehow solve the problem. But, don’t worry:

Police say law-abiding people have nothing to fear: Vehicle data deemed innocent would be purged after 30 days.

Translation: spying, collecting files, and then keeping the information on permanent record is entirely at the discretion of the police bureaucracy. In all:

The plan calls for 116 stationary and mobile license-plate readers and 3,000 closed-circuit cameras that would be monitored by officers at a command center.

"Operation Sentinel" huh? You know where else the word "sentinel" pops up a lot? In X-Men comics! These guys, remember? The ones that are programmed to hunt and kill mutants.

I am speechless...

A Clinton-Obama Deal?

Hillary Clinton's big win tonight in the West Virginia primary will probably, in restrospect, do little to increase her chances of winning the Democratic nomination for presidency (though I have no doubt, many spectators will disagree). Indeed, since Barack Obama's major win in North Carolina, coupled with his already significant lead in the popular votes and delegate count, most have been predicting that the general election will be a contest between Obama and John McCain. The two had even started planning their fall strategies.

However, if West Virginia demonstrates anything, it is that Clinton still has the capability of winning swing states and voters--much like her earlier victories in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Obama needs these to win against McCain in the fall, and many are beginning to suspect that he is likely to lose those that would have otherwise supported Clinton to a Republican vote.

The New York Times posed an interesting question today:

Mr. Obama needs her to help him win in the fall. Her devoted contingent of Democrats is nearly as large as his own, a point that will be underscored with her expected big win tonight in West Virginia. After a divisive primary season, he knows that winning over her supporters begins with winning over her.

So how about this: What if Mrs. Clinton asked Mr. Obama to adopt her plan for universal health care? He could put Mrs. Clinton in charge of achieving it, presumably but not necessarily from her perch inside the Senate. And he could begin by putting the goal of universal coverage as a plank in the party’s platform.

As the Times notes, this is purely speculative. However, it's still an interesting thought. Many might think that it is politically infeasible (which it probably is--I maintain my position that Obama will want nothing to do with Clinton if she drops from the race) or not particularly saavy on the part of Obama. I, however, think that such a "deal" might actually be a positive. In my view, Clinton's universal health plan--one which includes an individual mandate for the entire population--as opposed to Obama's, which only imposes one for children first, is a more efficient means towards an effective health care system. If Obama were to allow Clinton to run her health plan as part of his campaign in exchange for her voters' support, imagine the symbolic stimulus that the country could receive. Although there is an element of selfishness to it, the deal would still mark a cooperative agreement between Democrats--something that we have been lacking in the election so far. Imagine Democrats working together for the good of the nation. Plus, a higher propsect of beating out McCain in the fall.

I don't think this is so bad...

Russia

Quite fitting that the BBC posted two articles about Russia indicative that Russia is bound for more of same rather than possible change.

While the now elected Medvedev was portrayed as the man to steer clear of the hard handed Kremlin-Konsensus under the rule of one man, his victory speech was littered with outright statements of keeping in line with Putin's policy directives. To that end, he is quoted as saying that he will work in an "effective tandem" with Putin as his soon to be appointed Prime Minister.

Onward Russia, Inc.

The Delegates are Super

It looks like Obama is currently the front-runner of the Democratic campaign, but it also looks like the nominee might be decided by the "super-delegates" in August. Clinton supporters urge the delegates to vote according to their consciences. But, what does the public's wishes mean to a super delegate?

Oy. I hope they don't do anything that I wouldn't do!

Torture Shock

Nicholas Kristoff had an article in today's Times dealing with the issue of torture in Guatanamo Bay, and specifically with Sami al-Hajj, who is protesting the cruel and extensive abuses he was subjected to while imprisoned. Kristoff writes:

Mr. Hajj cannot bend his knees because of abuse he received soon after his arrest, yet the toilet chair he was prescribed was removed — making it excruciating for him to use the remaining squat toilet. He is allowed a Koran, but his glasses were confiscated so he cannot read it.

All this is inhumane, but also boneheaded. Guantánamo itself does far more damage to American interests than Mr. Hajj could ever do.

To stand against torture and arbitrary detention is not to be squeamish. It is to be civilized.

Torture is a critical issue these days. It has been raised again and again as a question for presidential hopefuls. Though it may be overshadowed now by health care and the economy, no doubt with the media attention that is given to Guatanamo abuses, terrorism have torture have been on people's minds. A poll conducted in December 2006 - January 2007 by Pew Research Center revealed that 12% of respondents think that torture in order to gain vital information is often justified, 31% feel it is sometimes justified, 25% think it is rarely justified, and 29% think that it is never justified (the remaining 3% were unsure--for all of you math geeks). Additionally, a stunning (but oddly not surprising) 40% of respondents feel that in order to curb terrorism, the public must be willing to relinquish some civil liberties.

In September, The Economist had an entire three-part series on civil liberties, terrorism and torture. They ultimately sided with civil liberties:

Take torture, arguably the hardest case (and the subject of the first article in our series). A famous thought experiment asks what you would do with a terrorist who knew the location of a ticking nuclear bomb. Logic says you would torture one man to save hundreds of thousands of lives, and so you would. But this a fictional dilemma. In the real world, policemen are seldom sure whether the many (not one) suspects they want to torture know of any plot, or how many lives might be at stake. All that is certain is that the logic of the ticking bomb leads down a slippery slope where the state is licensed in the name of the greater good to trample on the hard-won rights of any one and therefore all of its citizens.

I'm actually not going to go into extensive detail on my thoughts, suffice it to say that I tend to side with The Economist's view. I do want to point out one thing, however. The other night I was out with a friend to whom I made a crack about how Rudy Giuliani was virulently pro-torture. My friend could only laugh and comment on how sad it is that such a phrase would come out of my mouth, and that it is possible that someone could be "pro-torture."

In other words, how sad is it that torture is actually a prominent debate today?

A Flag By Any Other Name

What's in a flag? Apparently, a lot. I suppose the accoutrement of any new autonomous (?) state is a national symbol that the people can be proud of. Instead, the unveiling of the interim flag of Iraq visibly highlights some of the country's most pressing concerns.

Most striking is the decision to retain "Allah Akbar" as the centerpiece of the flag, in a script different from Saddam Hussein's supposedly original handwriting. This is not a problem at first glance--the majority of Iraq's population is Muslim and the flag should represent fundamental commonalities shared by the citizens that live under it. The intention to show that the various sects within the country share common bonds of unity, however, is completely overshadowed by tangible and horrifying sectarian conflict. The flag is a fantastic gesture, but ending conflicts might take more than just a piece of cloth--however, it is be a great start.

Many Iraqis are enraged by the change. Citing that the old flag was not a symbol of Saddam at all, score of protesting Iraqis throughout the country insist that it was one that thousands of citizen soldiers died for in patriotic wars. Municipalities have already pledged not to fly the new flag as citizens attach the old flag to their cars and houses. This protest, however, reminds me of the persistence of many states in the American south that continue to take pride in use of the Confederate flag. Just as the Confederate flag unquestionably represents a past marred by slave holding and racism by consensus, so does Saddam's handwritten script represent his once paternal dominance as does the three stars of the Ba'ath tripartite slogan "Unity, Freedom, and Socialism" remind the world (and the Iraqi people) of the hypocrisy behind the thinly veiled one party authoritarian rule.

Furthermore, Kurdish members of parliament (MP, MP's, MsP, M'sP... dear me) who pushed the initiative to change the flag are upset that the color yellow, representing the Kurdish population, was not added. Even on the simple but crucial level of palette choice, the flag fails to represent a sizable portion of the population who called for its ratification in the first place.

There is no doubt that creating a new flag is an important symbolic step. However, the new Iraqi flag is as tenuous and insecure as the nation it represents. It should prove extremely difficult to find a new national symbol that can sum up the values of the new nation whilst pleasing everyone.

On the purely aesthetic side...

Courtesy of a link through Tyler Cowen's Blog, I checked to see how the new flag fared on one completely unscientific ranking of world flags. It hasn't been updated yet, but I think through a purely artistic lens, losing the stars might place the new flag somewhere between Equatorial Guinea and Rwanda.

Good News For Obama?

John Edwards and Rudolph Giuliani have officially backed out of the race for the presidency. It is pretty clear that McCain is leading in the Republican nomination and he is also likely to receive Giuliani's voters following his public endorsement. But, for the Democrats the benefactor is a little more ambiguous. Does Edwards' departure mean good news for Obama or Clinton?

Personally, I think it will be Obama. Edwards voters--or those who favored his brand of liberal populism--are more likely to be attracted to a candidate that is emblematic of change (Obama) rather than one who we've essentially already seen in the White House (Clinton). Will these votes be enough to land Obama the Democratic nomination? Time will tell, but I think not.

Meet the Clintons

Here's a good op-ed piece from today's New York Times that argues against the sort of "plural presidency" that is likely to occur if Hillary Clinton wins the election:

We have seen in this campaign how former President Clinton rushes to the defense of presidential candidate Clinton. Will that pattern of protection be continued into the new presidency, with not only his defending her but also her defending whatever he might do in his energetic way while she’s in office? It seems likely. And at a time when we should be trying to return to the single-executive system the Constitution prescribes, it does not seem to be a good idea to put another co-president in the White House.

Garry Wills makes a pretty reasonable point here. He cites that one of the major problems of the Bush administration was that many members of the executive essentialy ran their own campaign, pointing specifically to Vice Presiden Dick Cheney heading his own intelligence and military operations. And we have already former President Clinton's appearance in the political scene, politicizing on the behalf of Hillary while simultaenously denouncing the Obama campaign (see earlier blog post here). It has pretty much become common knowledge that many Democrats favor Hillary Clinton because her presidency essentialy entails a package deal. If this is the kind of activity we can expect, then to say the least it would be quite an annoying four years.

The question remains, however, whether we should really expect this. Yes, a victory for Mrs. Clinton will mean that Bill will be poking his head around and influencing the political scene much more than he has been in recent years (recall how Mr. Clinton was actually seeking the nomination for UN Secretary General to follow Kofi Annan). But, I do not think that he will by any means running the sort of secret Cheney-like intelligence operations that Willis had in mind, nor do I think he would be undermining or polarizing the presidency. True, Mr. Clinton's resurgence has left me less-than-enthusiastic, which is not to say that I feel any better about Mrs. Clinton in the White House--but my point is that I do not think we have to worry about a "plural presidency" just yet.

More on Race and Politics

The New York Times reports:

Former President Bill Clinton defended himself Wednesday against accusations that he and his wife had injected the issue of race into the Democratic presidential primary in South Carolina, and he accused Senator Barack Obama of Illinois of putting out a “hit job” on him.

Scolding a reporter, Mr. Clinton said the Obama campaign was “feeding” the news media to keep issues of race alive, obscuring positive coverage of the presidential campaign here of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

And here I thought that Obama and Clinton had settled their differences. My mistake.