Is America Moving Towards Racial Equality?

The Supreme Court’s decision on Wednesday to overturn a Louisiana court’s ruling, which had in 1996 sentenced Alan Snyder to death on charges of first degree murder, was momentous on two levels. It set the precedence that the Supreme Court is still committed to protecting individuals’ rights from state infringements but it also sends a more powerful message about race relations within the United States. Discrimination, at least in the legal system, is unacceptable.

The Court’s opinion, written up by Justice Alito, defends their decision to overturn the case on the basis of jury bias as African Americans were systematically excluded during the jury selection process. Snyder has been granted a new trial. This case will therefore take its place in the halls of history, alongside cases such as Powel v. Alabama and Parker v. Gladden, as a direct attempt by the Supreme Court to protect not only civil liberties but also the integrity of the jury system, which remains one of the only remnants of pure democracy in the United States.

The Supreme Court’s decision comes at a time when the world waits with bated breath to see if America has finally risen above the racial prejudices that have marked its legal and political cultures for centuries. Particularly with the possibility of a black president, many people are now wondering if the United States is moving closer to Senator Obama’s “more perfect union”.

Amidst reflections on the Supreme Court’s decision and W.E.B Dubois’s statement that race is “a concrete test of the underlying principles of the great republic”, we are left to ask the question: Is America really moving towards racial equality?

The jury is still out on that one.

By Any Means Necessary

On March 8th 2008, US president George Bush used his executive power of veto to prevent the enactment of a bill that would have banned the CIA from using ‘enhanced’ methods of interrogation, such as waterboarding, on terrorism suspects. The veto overturned a vote of 222-199 in the house and 51-45 in the senate. Although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asserted that the Democratic-led congress would attempt to overturn the executive’s veto, given the margins in each chamber, reaching the two-thirds majority needed to reverse the veto may be difficult. Mr. Bush’s latest use of veto marks yet another step in the executive branch’s strengthening of control over matters relating to war and national security, with corresponding limitations to the involvement of congress and the courts in such decisions.
The debate over the United States’ use of torture as an interrogation method arose once again in the wake of the post 9/11 ‘War on Terror’ led by the Bush administration. Historically speaking, the US policy has been an official condemnation of torture – reflecting the moral principles… On an international scale, the US is signed on to both the Geneva Convention and the UN Ban on Torture However, there are many ways to get around these ‘non-binding’ agreements. Since the 9/11 attacks, President Bush has asserted his power to decide how to detain prisoners captured in the Afghan War, to hold any US citizen designated as an ‘army combatant’ without charges and, in a controversial 2002 memo, to authorize interrogators to violate anti-torture laws when necessary to protect national security.
However in 2005, in reaction to Mr. Bush’s stance on torture, senator John McCain filed an amendment to a Defense Department Bill, explicitly stating that the “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of any US detainee is illegal worldwide”. The House gave veto-proof support in 308-122 vote, while the Senate had already approved the provision 90-9. Faced with international pressure resulting from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, and accusations of secret CIA prisons, Bush approved the bill and released a statement saying “this is to make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and we adhere to the international convention of torture.”
On the same day that he approved the bill, Bush released a signing statement in which he said “the executive branch shall construe the law in a matter consistent with the constitutional authority of the president…” Mr. Bush’s, signing statement and his subsequent latest veto is proof that he never intended to follow this law. In a country founded on the principles of freedom and equality for all, yet that promises safety and protection to all its citizens, the issue of torture is an inherently ‘American Dilemma.’ The questions loom: 'how to ratify morality with the need for security?' and 'When will the executive reach its limit of power?'

Rocky Road

March 7, 2008, Bill Gates went before the House Committee on Science and Technology. He was not pondering the future of Microsoft or bargaining a tax break for his foundation. He was informing the committee that, “the U.S. faces a severe shortfall of scientists and engineers who can help maintain the country's position as the world's center for innovation.” In other words, we’re falling behind in the never-ending race toward the technological horizon.

There is a very simple reason for this, which Gates is well aware of: the United States cannot hold on to its foreign help. This sounds odd, considering the raging debates over how to keep immigrants out of America, not in. This applies only to illegal immigrants, however, and obviously is an important issue. In 2006, the estimated illegal immigrant population in the United States was 11.6 million. However, this crisis is distracting national attention away from an equally as troubling problem: our naturalization system is so faulty that we cannot keep foreign skilled, educated professionals for very long.

Trends have shown that immigrants are not naturalizing to America as fast as they used to because they encounter endless obstacles along their path to citizenship. The implications are catastrophic. This means that illegal immigrants can never become participatory, productive members of society. This means that often students who come here to study cannot stay because they cannot obtain a worker’s green card. This means that successful foreign businesspeople have trouble working for American-based firms because they are not promptly granted permission to live in America.

The current naturalization system requires many things, some of which are feasible and some of which are not. English-speaking abilities and favorable dispostion toward the U.S. are acceptable criteria. However, knowledge of U.S. history and good moral character are unreasonable, because they are both subjective and irrelevant. The government has little right to judge moral character, nor do they have the ability to. It is hindrances such as these that impair improvement in our economy.

The naturalization system in the United States today is seriously flawed. The process takes too much time, it is too detail-oriented, and is too vulnerable to mistakes in the catacombs of government offices. Politicians should stop bickering over illegal immigration and devote some time to a different venue, one that will directly benefit our economic standing and the perception of our country internationally. Maybe they can take a tip or two from Bill Gates while they’re at it.

Five Years and Counting: Americans on the Iraq War

With five years gone by since U.S. troops invaded Baghdad in 2003, headlines continue to proclaim the controversy that rages on across the nation regarding what the U.S. government is and should (or should not) be doing in Iraq. Much of the debate is focused on how to end the war rather than whether or not it should end. Although there remains a relatively large group of Americans who, following the example of our current president, George Bush, support the war, these numbers have drastically fallen since the spring of 2003. According to pollingreport.com, in April 2003, 75% of Americans approved of the way George Bush was handling the war in Iraq. Currently, only 30% of Americans maintain that opinion. This decline in support is for good reason.

As even the most politically disinterested Americans become aware of the disastrous state of our economy, it seems unreal that the United States government continues to expend funds and employ troops in Iraq. A poll done by CNN on March 19 reveals that 71% of Americans felt as though the spending in Iraq is responsible current economic state of the U.S., most likely because of the nearly .5 trillion dollars that has been spent in Iraq. There are currently 155,000 troops deployed in Iraq and nearly 4,000 deaths have ensued thus far. War protesters view these deaths and expenditures as unnecessary and detrimental beyond any potential gain in continuing the war.

Over the past week, anti-war activists celebrated the fifth anniversary of the war with protests across the nation, but Bush maintains and defends his decision to invade Iraq and his opinion that the war should continue until the U.S. has won. He stated on March 19 that “there is an understandable debate over whether the war was worth fighting, whether the fight is worth winning, and whether we can win it” but goes on to say that if he could, he would persist in the war until the U.S. is victorious. How he defines “victory” may be a prominent divider between his vision and those who are against the war.

In fact, what Bush regards as “victory” is difficult to define at all. Attempts to impose democracy upon the Iraqi people haven’t been successful and the goal of the U.S. to secure the nation has made little headway. How long will the U.S. continue to deploy troops and spend the money of taxpayers before we can claim success in securing the Iraqi nation? Unfortunately, much of the damage that has been done is irreversible and if U.S. troops are removed too quickly, results could be devastating for both Iraq and the United States.

Bumper stickers and front yard signs across the nation proclaim “support our troops – end the war.” Easier said than done, my friends, easier said than done.

Ethical Oversight?

The 2006 elections and Democratic takeover, which saw the defeat of even moderate Republicans such as Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, were a backlash to George Bush and the war in Iraq, but also to Jack Abramoff and other Republican ethics scandals.  It's been over a year since the newly minted Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, announced that she would make ethics reform a priority.  Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) led the eight member, bi-partisan task force charged with exploring bringing outsiders into the ethics process.  The task force was supposed to report back no later than May 1; 2006, however, it was December 19 before Capuano and colleagues unveiled their somewhat modest plan for a six-member panel dubbed the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.  This office is to consist of independent outsiders, and to assist with preliminary investigations.   Members of both parties have attacked this plan, those in favor of more radical reform have objected to the office’s lack of subpoena power, and fellow Democrat Louis Slaughter (D-NY) has balked at the idea of using outsiders.  None of the Republicans on the task force support the plan, and Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) maintains that the current ethics office only needs to be strengthened. 

However, if this plan were to make it to a floor vote, both parties would end up voting for it, if only to avoid the appearance of not being in favor of ethics reform.  In order for it to be passed, Capuano has had to compromise with both Democrats and Republicans, and yet, there seems to have been too much of a compromise, because, if enacted, this new office would be nearly toothless.  This is an example of a more plebescitary view of democracy: Speaker Pelosi is prioritizing ethics because the 2006 elections are seen as a national referendum, and polls cite ethics as one of the reasons voters elected Democrats.  Now, a year later, with national attention fixed on the Presidential elections and the floundering economy, it remains to be seen whether ethics reform will remain in such a prominent position on the Speaker’s agenda, or whether she will focus in on  today’s “hot” issues.

McCain (oh yeah, and others) Visit Israel

This week, Senators Joe Lieberman, Lindsey Graham, and (the star of the show) John McCain took a trip to the other side of the world to see how everyone else is doing. The trip includes stops in Iraq, Jordan, Israel, England, and France. The purpose of the trip, according to McCain, is not politics, but rather "only talking national security."

As a ranking member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, McCain, along with Lieberman, and Graham (who, by the way, are two of his closest allies in the Senate) were able to go on this trip, which included a stop in Israel. He met with many top Israeli officials including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and Likud party leader Benyamin Netanyahu. He also called Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas to discuss his committment to the peace process. McCain was happy to report back that Abbas is still on board. Good. As if he would tell McCain if he weren't.

How convenient. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee gets to take a theoretically non-political trip to Israel to rub shoulders with the leaders of America's greatest ally. Meanwhile back home, the Dems are still fighting like little school children. Republicans traditionally are known for being the party that is stronger on national security anyway, as opposed to the Democrats who have traditionally had a stronghold on domestic issues.

And no matter how non-political this trip was supposed to be, it can't be ignored that it was the "John McCain Show," featuring Lieberman and Graham, standing patiently on the side ready to whisper in McCain's ear when he makes a mistake. Who was always standing in the middle, speaking first and answering most of the questions? I'll give you a hint. He's the one running for President.

Iraqi Sentiment After 5 Years? Maybe not...

With the 5-year anniversary of the beginning of US involvement in Iraq falling this week, Michael J. Totten discusses the perils of public opinion polling in Iraqi society.  Having visited Iraq on numerous occasions, Totten comments on the recent, 17 March, poll published by ABC News.  Conducted in collaboration with the BBC, the German television station ARD and Japanese station NHK, the poll expresses an air of overall success.  But, as Totten wisely suggests, this must all be taken with a fairly large grain of salt.  

Conducted through face-to-face interviews with 2,228 Iraqi adults, there was a reported overall 2.5 point error margin, with the use of oversampling in the following areas:

•Mosul and the Anbar province, which are predominately Sunni

•Kirkuk, which is Kurdish

•Sadr City (Baghdad) and Basra City, which are mainly Shi’a

The poll claims overall positive findings for the past six months in terms of security gains.   These levels of sentiment regarding security, how the individual lives of the Iraqis are and prospects for the next year, however, are low in comparison to polls conducted in 2005. 

In addition, the poll cites the opinions on greater economic improvements experienced in Iraq are comparable to the opinions found on security.  

In terms of American popularity and support for American involvement, the analyses accompanying the poll explained that when asked about the institutions that have made positive security gains, the outlook is not in the favour of the US.  The vast majority of Iraqis claim it is their own institutions which have produced these outcomes.  However, the number of Iraqis who believe that the United States should withdraw now has fallen, indicating that many Iraqis believe the United States can play a major role in enhancing security and combating Al-Qaeda, which was cited as the most popular reason for a continued US presence. 

Both Totten and John Burns from the New York Times, however, caution that intimidation has likely skewed the entire polling process.  As Totten claims, he ultimately cannot speak for the entire population, as he has never met with the insurgents, however, he does not believe that the poll accurately reflects the entire spectrum of the population.  

         Although Al-Qaeda is the obvious extreme, there are many other groups which fall along the spectrum of Iraqi politics.  It is highly unlikely that the opinions of those sampled include many with more extreme views, thus resulting in a biased sample.  The sectarian and ethnic differences, however, are respected and noted, lending some more credibility to the entire study, with results reported from the Kurdish, Sunni and Shi’a populations.

The significant issue that Totten addresses is the different answers that respondents can give when asked by different people.  When talking to them face-to-face, the answer is likely to change depending on what will happen to the information. “A single individual may tell me that he supports the American military presence, and the very same day tell a pollster that he opposes the American military presence.”  This is what Totten and Burns mean by intimidation.  As these reporters are often accompanied by armed forces, the Iraqi is afraid that a negative response will elicit actions against them.  If this information goes into a public forum, a positive response to American intervention will make them fearful of retaliation by the insurgents.  This is what Totten hopes to tell the reader when he says that, "I often suspect Iraqis tell me what they think I want to hear.  What they're really doing, more than anything else, is telling me what they want me to hear.  The difference is subtle, but crucial."

Election '08 or bust!

As the rest of the world looks on, the Democratic party is tearing itself apart. As German magazine Der Spiegel so aptly puts it, Obama and Clinton are like two boxers in a ring. Each is throwing blow after blow, targeting the same sensitive areas of their opponent. Meanwhile, the Republicans have their candidate warming up on the sidelines, with one eye to the ring. McCain only has to wait for Obama and Clinton to duke it out until one or the other hits the floor. Then, as soon as the winner can stumble to their feet again, there’s McCain, armed with the same accusations the two democratic candidates have been already been throwing around for months.

Why haven’t the two democratic candidates realized how much of this vicious primary season has essentially been self-destructive? Why haven’t they called a compromise and put aside their overused insults? Compromise is just conflict by more sophisticated means, says a German columnist. Ouch. Step it up, America, because the rest of the world thinks that it’s time for you to move on from this stalemate situation. Foreign opinion doesn’t even hold out much hope for an overdue but successful end to this candidacy race. A fight to the death won’t end with even a decent majority of the Democratic party’s support behind a single candidate. Already this race has sharply divided the party and on the day that a Democrat is potentially voted into office, millions of Democratic voters will still be mourning the absence of the candidate who lost months previously. The issue with this election’s candidates is that feelings run particularly deep. People aren’t just voting for the next U.S. President—they’re expressing their own views about race and gender. A vote for Obama means a vote for racial minorities; a vote for Hillary means a vote for women. Either way, it would be a first in America’s history, and voters are taking these personal aspects of the candidates to heart this year much more than ever before.  Not only do Americans want favored policies to be protected, but they also want to be able to identify with the candidate chosen--in a such celebrity-crazed society, this is not so hard to understand.

There aren’t enough regular delegates left for either candidate to win a clear nomination and so it will be left up to the 800 superdelegates at the nominating convention this summer to make that final decision. It looks as though this fight will have to wait for the DNC to be decided because it doesn’t look likely that a compromise will be reached. Clinton’s team may have once been willing to consider Obama as a Vice President, but refuses to consider the same option in reverse. The feeling’s mutual at Obama headquarters. At present the possibility of a dream ticket is most definitely out of the question. For now, this bitter fight is only helping one man, and he’s ready to get another four years for the GOP.

Health Care Policy - Local or Federal?

January of this year, San Francisco got the nod from the United States Court of Appeal to implement its new health care plan that would insure all off its residents. This new move is part of Mayor Gavin Newsom’s “Healthy San Francisco” program which he established in 2005 to, over time, become San Franciscans’ sole health care provider. The funding for the expansion of “Healthy San Francisco” to cover all residents, and not just those at or below the poverty line, will be coming from an increased tax on businesses as well as funding from the Federal government. The new mandate requires that employers spend between almost double what they would have, per hour per employee, on health care for that employee, or send that money to the program itself where employees can go collect.

But getting here for Mayor Newsom was like trying to drive down Lombard Street. When the mandate was first introduced, it was challenged vigorously by analysts and business owners in San Francisco. The business owners took the city to court and challenged the city’s authority to pass such a mandate. On December 26 of this past year, Judge Jeffrey White agreed with those business owners and found against the city, citing that the mandate violated the 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) which is a federal law that regulates employee sponsored health benefits. Opponents of the mandate claim that ERISA clearly checks the power of the state legislature against making policy directed toward employers and that the power to do so lies solely with the federal government.

So how did the plan pass? The judges at the Appeals Court thought that “the public interest would be served” with this new mandate. But upon additional inquiry, one sees that the issue at hand is not just the program itself but who has the power to make the program; a problem born out of our federal system.

The Department of Labor explains ERISA as a federal law that has sets the minimum standards of health care and pension plans for employers in the private industry. Nowhere in the explanation is there a mention of the federal government limiting or regulating the health care or pension plans. Furthermore, the 10^th amendment of the constitution states that unless specified, the default power lies with the states.

The feud between the states and the federal government continues as the repercussions of this decision have warned Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez as they gear up to argue their state-wide universal health care plan, which also has an employer mandate, in front of the Legislature.

Empty Policies

As a direct result of the failure to execute the policy of Bush’s landmark No Child Left Behind in its entirety, and the overwhelming dislike for a centralized education system, this policy has become a feel good slogan which is vacant of any viable plan to ensure that no child is truly left behind. The overwhelming majority of children left behind are low income and/or minority students living in California, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania and New York. It is peculiar; to say the least, that the two remaining Democratic contenders represent two of these failing school districts, Illinois and New York. Also, these 5 states may well determine who will be the Democratic nominee to face John McCain in the general election. This fact should serve as a wake up call to remind those remaining believers that a slogan without any funding, and little or no consequences for our failing schools is doomed from the very beginning. We seem to have abandoned the ideals of the American Creed by neglecting to invest in our schools and thus ignoring our greatest asset by giving the present administration a free pass to administer a policy without any teeth and vacant of any realistic planning to combat our failing schools. This administration seems to be at their best when declaring war against failing schools in the same way that they neglected to give our military women and men the armor protection that they needed earlier in the Iraq war. The No Child Left Behind Act was intended to increase government involvement in the management of schools, increase funding for schools which serve low income students and set a deadline by 2014 which says that all students must be performing at grade-level and proficient in reading and math and in each category they have failed miserably.

The Right Kind of Gun Rights

Ingrained in every American citizen is the incomparable desire for liberty; the Bill of Rights was implemented to grant and protect that liberty. 1st amendment court cases are constantly being reviewed, but as explained in a New York Times article for almost 70 years, the 2nd amendment has been interpreted as granting the "well regulated militia" the right to bear arms. Maybe, if the ratifiers had used more explicit punctuation this interpretation wouldn't be in question today, but the ambiguous commas in the Bill of Rights leave the ratifiers' intentions unclear.
Who has the right to bear arms? Only the militia or every individual.

Last year, the Court of Appeals for D.C. used the individual rights rational to strike down D.C's strict gun law. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court and on November 20th, the Court accepted Heller v. District of Columbia for review.

Arguing in favor of D.C. is former acting solicitor general, Walter Dellinger. He takes us back to the time of the framers when arms was defined as military equipment. This argument doesn't appeal to 'swing voter' Justice Kennedy who has no problem viewing the amendment's 2 clauses as separate, the 2nd as enshrining a right to bear arms. Only 8 minutes into the argument, the Court held 5 votes to create a fundamental right to bear arms.

Alan Gura, making his debut at the high court, represents D.C. gun owners. Gura ends up conceding that regulations on certain weapons might make sense, but he still views the individual right to bear arms as a fundamental right at stake.

The lawyer in the middle, both figuratively and literally, is Paul Clemens, the solicitor general representing the president. He argues that the case should be revisited by the appeals court, so that the federal ban on machine guns won't be in danger. But, Justice Scalia isn't worried about machine guns and Vice President Dick Cheney even filed a brief urging the Court to affirm the gun-ban as unconstitutional.

Chief Justice John Roberts explained that setting an "all encompassing standard" is necessary since the Court is starting afresh on this topic. But, that doesn't make such a precedent any more predictable. Dellinger refocuses the Court with his rebuttal, reminding the justices that this is a case about local legislation; citizens of urban and rural areas are affected very differently by gun laws. Nevertheless, rather than allowing local legislators to thrash the issue out, the Robert Court's conservative majority (with Kennedy's vote) is creating a new constitutional right.

Ignoring Tibet. China- Not a Human Rights Violator?

Last Tuesday, March 11th, the U.S State Department dropped China from its list of the world’s worst human rights violators. The current top ten on this list include: North Korea, Myanmar, Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Eritrea and Sudan. Many human rights activists are outraged at the State Department’s decision. They feel that the State Department has conveniently turned a blind eye to the arrests happening in Tibet.

"The press freedom group Reporters Without Borders denounced the move. This decision was announced even as it was learned that some 100 Tibetan monks have been arrested and Chinese authorities are refusing to release activist Hu Jia and dozens of other freedom of expression advocates,"
-International Herald Tribune

Despite the State Department’s 2007 annual report statement that described China’s overall human rights record as poor, the State Department went ahead and dropped China from its list of the world’s worst human rights violators.
Why? The State Department’s decision makes me recall Samuel P. Huntington’s definition of our American Creed (equality, liberty, individualism, constitutionalism, and democracy). In the Olympics, all athletes have an equal chance to compete and succeed. The Olympics promote equality (and fraternity). Hosting the Olympics also requires a certain degree of economic stability and wealth. The American Creed ideals of equality and liberty have come to be tied to the idea of economic laissez-faire capitalism. As China undergoes economic reform towards a more capitalistic society, the U.S begins to perceive China as moving towards reform overall. As the U.S recognizes hints of equality and liberty in certain institutions of China, the U.S optimistically hopes that the Beijing Olympics will draw attention to China and create pressure to improve human rights overall. The Olympics and China's shift towards capitalism have altered U.S perception of China. The State Department’s decision to drop China from its list of the world’s worst human rights violators is a great example of the role of the American Creed in U.S foreign policy.

Feminism Between a Rock and Hard Place

Thanks to Hillary Clinton's candidacy for president, gender has rarely been in the media more than it is now (see the New York Times article on gender in society ). The relationship between feminists and Clinton in this primary has been complicated at best. Many prominent feminists such as Gloria Steinem have come out (often controversially) in support of Senator Clinton, while Barack Obama has continued to have more youth support, including that of many younger feminists. Part of it is a generational difference: many second-wave feminists are thrilled with Clinton's historic candidacy, while Obama has enjoyed success with many young voters of both genders. Yet at the core of this, we see a conflict between two American values: equality and individuality.

Americans' love of equality works in both of these candidates' favors. For feminists, the idea of a woman breaking the strongest glass ceiling in the nation is too tempting to resist. Not only that, but Clinton has real feminist credibility, including her career as a child advocate in law and her speech at the United Nations World Conference on Women in Beijing. Electing Clinton for president could potentially accomplish progress in ways second-wavers have only dreamed of.

But conflicting with this desire for equality is a strong pull for individuality. Many feminists, especially younger feminists from the third wave, resent feeling obligated to vote for Clinton because she's a woman. If anything, it is almost the more feminist thing to vote for Obama because women's equality means voting for whomever you think is the best candidate. These sentiments have prevented Clinton from making a lot of headway with young women voters that was expected.

U.S. May Relent on Hamas Role in Talks

The New York Times reports that, in an effort to make progress with peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, the "Bush administration is using Egypt as an intermediary to open a channel between Israel and representatives of [Hamas]", the militant Islamic group.

Reaching a peace treaty between Israel and Palestine is, needless to say, crucial for the well-being of that region, but many question the effectiveness of negotiating with a group known for its acts of terrorism. Isn't negotiating with "terrorists" against American policy? Some officials call this a "softening of the American stance", and rightfully so.

Past peace talks have been interrupted by attacks from Hamas against Israel, attempting to provoke retaliation. But perhaps by introducing Egyptian officials as mediators and considering the wants of the Islamic group, progress can be made, and talks can proceed more smoothly.

An interesting spin on the issue occured when a recent State Department blog posed the question "Should the United States engage Hamas as part of its efforts to bring about peace between the Israelis and Palestinians?", and the responses, at best, ridiculed the fact that such a question was posted. One comment blatantly asked the blogger "Are you nuts?". Congressman Mark Kirk, R-Illinois, accused the question of "undercut[ting] the policy of the United States". (Seriously, Mr. Kirk, it was a question, not a suggestion.)

It is evident that a good deal of people agree that this move is, indeed, "soft". But, all things considered, where else can the U.S. look to in this situation? The U.S. and Israel should exhaust their possibilities instead of turning their noses up at opportunities for peace.

Primaries and Generals

What can we learn about the likely success of presidential candidates in general elections from their performance in primaries and caucuses? My answer as a political scientist is: very little. Neither Obama's success in red states with independent voters, nor Clinton's success with working-class whites in some big blue states, will necessarily carry over to the general election. The constituencies of both candidates are going to look quite different when they are matched up against McCain. Moreover, even in this remarkably competitive nomination season, only about 27 million Americans have voted. In the general election, participation is likely to be roughly four times that, and there's every reason to believe that general election voters will be quite different from primary voters.

I'm happy to see that a journalist, Jeff Greenfield, agrees, though I would add to his analysis that voting in the general election is likely to be largely driven by factors--the state of the economy and the status of the war in Iraq--that none of the candidates, or their campaign managers, can control.  Political science research on presidential campaigns tends to be fairly fatalistic; it suggests the choice of Obama versus Hillary will have much less impact on the fortunes of the Democrats this fall than supporters of either candidate seem to assume. Here's a good example of how political scientists think about presidential elections. According to Doug Hibbing's model, John McCain can expect to win 46-47% of the vote in the general election. Hibbing acknowledges the influence of more idiosyncratic matters--a tough nomination fight might have repercussions in the general election, for example--but like most political scientists who study elections, Hibbing emphasizes larger structural factors. If there's a full-blown recession in the third quarter of 2008, McCain and the whole Republican Party are going to be swimming upstream against a very heavy current.