US Elections

President Barack Obama was supposed to be in Australia just last weekend, visiting the Prime Minister and speaking to a joint session of Parliament.  The Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico postponed the trip for the second time.  In March, the President postponed his planned trip because of health care reform.  It was rescheduled for last weekend.  Given Rudd's dwindling popularity in June, a trip would most likely have been the salve he needed.

President Obama is still incredibly popular in Australia.  There can be little doubt that a visit from him would have boosted Kevin Rudd's poll numbers, however minorly, and stemmed the tide of the leadership challenge.  While a leadership challenge mere days after showing off Australia's wonders to the leader of the free world would have been unthinkable, one days after a snub was both realistic and almost to be expected. And so Julia Gillard challenged Kevin Rudd for the Federal Labor leadership. And won.  If Obama had visited last weekend, such a challenge was unfathomable.

However indirectly, the Oil Spill claimed its first world leader today.  Kevin Rudd could no longer be Prime Minister of Australia.  If BP's oil spill hadn't have happened, I sincerely doubt that Kevin Rudd could have lost the leadership.  Barack Obama canceling his trip had far greater consequences than anyone could imagine.

Hide

The very night of that ceremony, which was the 14^th of April, they held a banquet of a sort in a building that had a roof on it, back in Charleston, and that was the very night, of course, that Lincoln was assassinated at Ford's Theater in Washington. But the black folks of Charleston had planned one more ceremony. That ceremony was a burial ceremony. It turns out that during the last months of the war the Confederate Army turned the planter's horse track, a racecourse--it was called the Washington Racecourse--into an open air cemetery--excuse me, prison. And in that open air prison, in the infield of the horse track--about 260-odd Union soldiers had died of disease and exposure--and they were buried in unmarked graves in a mass gravesite out behind the grandstand of the racetrack. And by the way, there was no more important and symbolic site in low country planter/slaveholding life then their racetrack.

Well, the black folks at Charleston got organized, they knew about all this. They went to the site. They re-interred all the graves, the men. They couldn't mark them with names, they didn't have any names. Then they made them proper graves and they built a fence all the way around this cemetery, about 100 yards long and fity, sixty yards deep, and they whitewashed the fence and over an archway they painted the inscription "Martyrs of the Racecourse." And then on May 1^st 1865 they held a parade of 10,000 people, on the racetrack, led by 3000 black children carrying armloads of roses and singing John Brown's Body, followed then by black women, then by black men--it was regimented this way--then by contingents of Union infantry. Everybody marched all the way around the racetrack; as many as could fit got into the gravesite. Five black preachers read from scripture. A children's choir sang the national anthem, America the Beautiful, and several spirituals, and then they broke from that and went back into the infield of the racetrack and did essentially what you and I do on Memorial Day, they ran races, they listened to sixteen speeches, by one count, and the troops marched back and forth and they held picnics. This was the first Memorial Day.

Transcript available here.

It's easy to forget Memorial Day originated in the Civil War.  The way that war was remembered is both fascinating, and an interesting insight into American culture and history.  Blight's book, Race and Reunion, looks at the way the Civil War was remembered during the first 50 years after it was fought.  

November this year marks 150 years since Lincoln's election.  December marks 150 years since South Carolina seceded. In the coming five years, as the 150th anniversaries of battles and moments of the war are remembered, the battle for the way its remembered will no doubt resurface. 

Happy Memorial Day, everyone!

Hide

Every year, I spend the little bit of time to register to participate in the lottery.  There are a few other visa options available to me, but none would put me on a path toward citizenship.  Plus, they're all linked to a specific job.  Convincing an American employer to take a chance on an Australian they've never met is hard enough in a good economic climate- at the moment, it's near impossible.  So even though there's only 50,000 spots, and millions of applicants, I throw my name in the ring every year.

But this is what the visa lottery really is: it's a chance- truly, just a chance- for people to immigrate to the United States, and to be put on a path toward citizenship.  Even as a native English-speaker with a Masters degree in US Studies, it's still my best chance to get a greencard. 

Immigration to the United States is very difficult, and I don't think many of those speaking out against immigration reform realise just how hard it is for someone to legally enter the United States for any significant period of time.  

Hide

Here are seven reasons I think this will be the case:

1.     The economy is recovering.

Every month, things get a little bit better.  Jobs are created.   TARP worked.  There’s been a little bit of spin around this fact, but expect Democrats to step it up as November gets closer.  “The Republicans caused the problem. We solved it.” will be a powerful narrative.

2.     The deficit isn’t as bad as expected

Not much has been made of this yet, but the deficit isn’t actually as big as it was projected to be, and not by an insignificant margin.  The economy is recovering, tax revenues are higher than expected, and banks are paying back the bailout ahead of schedulure. Again, expect the Dems to start making noise about this fact.

3.  The Gulf of Mexico oil spill isn’t so good for Republicans

Yes, yes, I know Obama endorsed offshore drilling in the State of the Union, but “Drill, Baby, Drill”  is far more engrained in the collective memory.  Images of the gulf coast, of dead turtles, of oil-covered birds, and the cost of the clean up, will be contrasted against Republicans singing the praises of offshore drilling.  Clean energy takes on a whole new meaning, and the Dems are certainly the party of clean energy.

4.  Several positive parts of the health care bill will kick in soon

A family with kids in their early -20s will soon be able to add them back on to their health insurance plan.  Patients with pre-existing conditions will shortly have new options with the health insurance exchanges due to launch in the Summer.  Kids with pre-existing conditions will be covered . Lifetime coverage limits will be lifted.  Insurance rescission will be banned.  And all these things will happen with time to spare before November- and all of these improvements can be wholly owned by Democrats.

5.  Immigration Reform will mobilize voters

There's a bit of back-and-forth about which party would really be helped my immigration reform, but my suspicion is that it will be advantageous to the Democrats.  After reading far too many anti-immigration letters during my time in DC, it certainly seems to me that many of those who are likely to vote based on their anti-immigration views are both already very mobilized and unlikely to ever vote Democrats.  The voters who are more likely to be newly mobilized by immigration reform would be more likely to vote Democrat.  Of course, this is only a gut feeling, but I'd be surprised if the results didn't show this to be the case... 

6. The Tea Party movement is nominating candidates that are unpalatable in a general election

The Tea Party movement has had only moderate success in the primaries thus far, but as Ezra Klein pointed out yesterday, they don’t need to win to push candidates to the right. Consequently, there's a strong chance that candidates who have stronger right-wing views will be the Republican nominees across the country in November.  These views may not be as palatable to the independent voter as the mean Republican's was, say, six years ago.

7.  The Democrats, and Obama’s team in particular, are good at organizing

Organizing for America is just about to step up its effort for the 2010 campaign.  They are incredibly good at using data to target voters.  Their recently-announced plan to target the 3 million first-time voters from 2008 could prove an incredibly effective strategy.  Beyond that, though, their use of technologies to support organising is just exceptional.  With six months of lead time, they could very easily devise a very successful strategy to change the demographics of the mid-term voters.  

Expect to see them very strategically using the significant accomplishments of the 111th Congress to highlight the fact that Democrats do good things for the country, but expect to see them do it when it matters.  Elections are a marathon.  Remember, McCain took the lead in early September 2008, but the Obama campaign ran when it mattered and conserved energy when it didn't.

The fact is, it’s only May.  There is a LOT of time between now and November.  1994 looms large in the Democrats’ imagination, but there’s every reason to have hope.  The Obama campaign was nothing if not savvy in elections, and it shouldn’t be expected that they’d waste time now, in May, when there’s still six months until the election.  As long as they pick the right narratives- and there are plenty there for the picking- and get their incredibly organizing apparatus moving again, there are plenty of reasons to think November won’t be anywhere near as disastrous as many fear.

Hide

I mean, I get that you assume your audience knows nothing about American politics, but would it have hurt you to set it up with a bit of background (it's not like the audience would have gone anywhere!!). That way you could have asked the President for actual insight, rather than just answers you could have got from wikipedia.

And you know what? There is SO MUCH MORE to US Foreign policy than Iraq and Afghanistan, and the questions about Iraq and Afghanistan have been asked a thousand times.  What about focusing on the US's role in the Pacific region- NO, not just China, the Pacific- since we are actively involved in that?  What about asking about the role of the G20, since we're not involved?  Why not ask questions about the continuing nature of US-Australian relations?  

You have a genuinely once-in-a-lifetime experience, to sit down with the sitting President of the United States, and that is really the best you can come up with?

I, for one, would have asked him about the United States' position on Mandatory Internet Filtering.  I know, I know, it's my question, but still, it's easily the biggest story in Australian-US relations in the last month or so, so why not ask about that.

In trying to produce an epic, sweeping interview, you've instead produced one that says absolutely nothing new, Kerry.  It was not impressive.

Oh, and one more thing.  At the end, you said "Barack Obama, Thank You."  It's PRESIDENT Barack Obama, thank you. To not use his title was exceptionally disrespectful.

So, anyone have any BETTER questions O'Brien could have asked President Obama?

Hide

Since watching Hillary Clinton's Remarks on Internet Freedom earlier this year, I've long wondered how the United States' commitment to internet freedom is reconcilable with the Senator Conroy's proposed Internet Filter, know as "the clean feed".  The proposed mandatory, ISP-level filter would give the government the capacity to censor and block sites in Australia, and the list of what was to be blocked is to be confidential.

Last week, I read that State Department officials had expressed concern over the filter, so figured I'd take the opportunity to submit a question on it's implications for Australian- US relations.  I asked:

"Given the United States' commitment to internet freedom, articulated by Hilary Clinton in January, does Australia's proposed internet filter threaten our relationship in any way? Can the US continue to pressure Iran and China about internet freedom if they don't similarly pressure Australia?"

The Ambassador replied:

I didn’t think I could - you know, I went to the dentist today, so I thought I had already done this but my - well, look, on the issue of the internet, we have been very clear. The internet needs to be free. It needs to be free of the way the way we have said skies have to be free, outer space has to be free, the polar caps have to be free, the oceans have to be free. They have to be shared. They’re shared resources of all of the people of the world. To the extent that there are disagreements and trying to find the right balance between law enforcement and respecting that general principle, we work with our friends and so we’ve been working with Australia on this issue. We’ve had healthy discussions and we’re - I’m sure we’ll be able to find a path forward.

The discussion then followed, with a number of Australian political figures who were on the panel weighing in their their views.  The video and the transcript are available here.  The Ambassador's response generated a bit of press coverage, with the Sydney Morning Herald/The Age and The Australian both reporting on his answer.

After I got home, in my own vanity, I read a lot of the reactions people had to the conversation, and I found it fascinating that many kept suggesting that the United States should mind its own business.  Aside from being a really naive approach to international relations, such suggestions ignored the second part of my questions as, I should point out, did the panel.

With the US's commitment to encouraging democracy around the world, the powers of the internet as a means to politically organise can't be overlooked.  During the Iranian elections last year, the internet was a key means by which information was spread.  Protecting free internet is an important political task, and one that fits very well with the United States' foreign policy.

In order to ensure the US had the moral authority to encourage internet freedom, it must do so consistently.  It cannot ignore internet censorship in Australia- and make no mistake, that is what a filter is- while putting pressure on other countries to ensure their internet is free.  The United States needs to be consistent in this.

Hide

The timing of the announcement is interesting: the confirmation process will now stretch toward the midterms, and provide each party with the opportunity to control and change the narrative.  If they nominate a liberal justice, will the Democrats be able to paint Republicans as obstructionist and unwilling to govern?  They've had some trouble gaining traction with this narrative before, but in this case, it may just work.  But similarly, the Republicans could use the nomination of a liberal justice to say the Democrats have been overly partisan in the 111th Congress and worked against the will of the populace.

I think the Democrats best hope is to use the Citizens United decision to sell the need for a liberal justice.  The simple fact is that that decision is woefully unpopular, and the court was split between conservative and liberal justices.  Use Citizens United. Warn the public that the Republicans have picked justices who are beholden to big business, and that we need liberal justices to fight this.  Yes, the balance of the court won't shift, but we need to hold the left flank to ever have any hope of preventing more decisions like Citizens United.

The balance of the court has undoubtedly shifted to the right over the last 30 years, and the court has lacked for a new, truly liberal fighter for a long while.  After Bush's very conservative nominations, a strong liberal voice is all the more necessary.  The questions remains, though, that after a frustrating, though ultimately successful, battle over health care, does the Obama administration have another fight like that in them?

I hope so.

Should the President decide to go with a truly liberal justice, there are plenty of amply suitable candidates.  We at the USSC will undoubtedly offer our own analysis and opinions as the nomination battle continues.  But as to my personal preferred pick?  I'm very fond of Harold Koh, and would love to see him nominated.

Hide

There’s a lovely quote about Lincoln from W. E. B. Dubois which, I think, beautifully captures what made him great:

“I love him, not because he was perfect, but because he was not perfect, yet triumphed. There was something left so that at the crisis, he was big enough to be inconsistent.”

To which Blight added:

“I’d argue that the most important thing you can understand about Abraham Lincoln is tat he had the capacity for growth.” 

Big enough to be inconsistent. A leader who owned his mistakes, who bided his time, who changed his mind.  A leader who acted on principle, but could be convinced.  A leader who put his conviction about what was the right thing to do ahead of his own political fate.

Later in the lecture series, Blight tells the story of when Abraham Lincoln called Frederick Douglass to the White House, a few months ahead of the 1864 election.  With the war dragging on, and that summer’s crucial victories yet to swing the momentum, Lincoln was genuinely concerned- in fact, genuinely believed- he would lose the presidency, and that his successor would make a treaty with the Confederacy.  So he called Douglass to the White House, and asked him if he would lead an effort to smuggle as many enslaved persons from the South to protection behind Union lines, ahead of the election. Douglass returned to his home, flabbergasted, and began to make plans and ask advice on how he might begin such an endeavour. 

Union victories soon rendered the plans redundant, but the story illustrates the greatness of Lincoln.  When his defeat seemed likely, he wanted not to protect act in a manner that would sure up electoral success, but to ensure that what he had fought for would be preserved. He was a pragmatist, a realist, yet at the same time one who pursued high ideals.  He was a real politician who governed in the real world he faced, at the same time he sought to change it.

On Saturday, Barack Obama addressed the House Democratic caucus, and he quoted Lincoln:

"I am not bound to win, but I'm bound to be true. I'm not bound to succeed, but I'm bound to live up to what light I have."

How very appropriate for that sentiment to have echoed with the Obama, for the nature of his approach to leadership, more closely than any President since, resembles Lincoln’s own.  He too demonstrates an understanding for the need to carefully balance one’s sense of duty with political realities. Obama’s patience- his powerful patience- is much like Lincoln’s own.  Both waited to act, thought over what they were doing, and took the long, difficult road, rather than acting impulsively.

Obama’s thoughtfulness is also much like Lincoln’s.  Unlike so many other leaders, he is both open to being convinced by good ideas, and willing to admit his own error.  There was a powerful moment, during the health care summit, when John McCain brought up the Florida Medicare Advantage deal, claiming it was unfair.  Yes, Obama admitted, it was, and he’d prefer to see it gone.  There was no attempt to justify it, or deny that McCain had a point.  For Obama, the right thing was to simply acknowledge the truth.

And it is, in part, by emulating the best of Lincoln that Obama was able, with obvious help, to usher this health care bill through.  After 100 years of trying, the United States has universal health care.  And it took a leader with statesmanship much like Lincoln’s to get it done.

And Obama’s own oratory sometimes even broaches the soaring height’s of Lincoln’s own. I am certain some of yesterday’s remarks after the bill passed will be quoted for generations:

In the end, what this day represents is another stone firmly laid in the foundation of the American Dream. Tonight, we answered the call of history as so many generations of Americans have before us. When faced with crisis, we did not shrink from our challenge -- we overcame it. We did not avoid our responsibility -- we embraced it. We did not fear our future -- we shaped it.

*Again, I cannot recommend this lecture series more highly.  It has enhanced my understanding of the United States in a way I can hardly articulate.  Understanding the American Civil War only serves to enhance your understanding of every aspect of American life: politics, culture, inequality, religion. And beyond that, Blight, who visited the USSC last year, is simply a phenomenal lecturer.  The entire series- 26 hour-long lectures- is available entirely free of charge online at the Open Yale site or through iTunes U.  Download a few and take a listen. I challenge you not to be blown away.

Hide