What the UK elections say about our current political climate

As polls close across the United Kingdom, the Conservative Party under David Cameron stands to win a plurality of seats in the House of Commons. The center-left Labor Party, under Gordon Brown, stands to take a hit in the polls due to public outrage over the government's handling of the global economic recession. A third variable in the equation is the center-left Liberal Democrats, who have surged since the debates and will undoubtedly become a swing vote in the hung parliament that most pundits expect. The UK election, though much different than our own midterm elections, can give us some insight into the current political problems facing the Democratic Party (US).

The Democrats and Labor are in similar situations. Both are center-left parties that have come to power recently after a string of bad decisions by the center-right party. Both of them held majorities during the economic crisis and therefore had to make a lot of tough decisions that apparently did nothing to improve the economy. Let me clarify that though the Democrats did not control the presidency during the crash, they controlled both branches of the legislature and later the presidency during the economic fallout that was caused by the crash. The main difference between the parties is that Barack Obama appears to be generally improving the position of the Democrats whereas Gordon Brown appears to be driving discontent with the Labor Party.

What is important is both of these parties stand to take a major hit in their respective elections, likely losing their majorities. It is easy to forget that neither of these parties caused the recession. The Democrats generally opposed recent efforts to deregulate the financial markets and the Labor Party had little to do with it as the problem originated in America. Pundits have been talking about polls that show something like 60% of Americans would vote out their incumbent representative or senator. In most of these cases, the incumbent will be a Democrat. It is not clear, however, that most of these independent minded Americans want to vote Republican either. Last time I checked, the Republican Party's favorability rating stood at 22% whereas the Democratic Party stood at 38%. A similar trend is happing in the UK. Many people don't want Labor, but they also don't want to vote Conservative. Conservative is the lesser of two evils in their eyes. But the funny thing about a parliamentary system is there aren't only two choices. Enter Liberal Democrats.

The Lib Democrats generally follow similar policies to Labor, though they favor a free market economy and other centrist measures. Generally speaking, if support is shifting from Labor to Liberal Democrats, it isn't the policies that are drawing support from Labor. This is most likely true in America. People want to blame someone for the harsh economic conditions, so they blame the ruling party. They don't, however, want their lifeline cut by a center-right party so they are confused. The bottom line is that if there was a strong third party in America, they would be surging right now. We would likely be better off because of it.

Is Diane Wood really our first choice?

Diane Wood is everything we could want in a Supreme Court nominee. She is a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit. She holds very liberal positions in areas ranging from abortion rights to the rights of illegal immigrants. Furthermore her liberal activism fits very well into the shoes of John Paul Stevens, long known as the leader of the liberal wing of the court. The only problem is (don't take this personally, Judge) she's old. To most people this would not seem like a big deal. Older justices are much more experienced and therefore are more thoughtful when it comes to decision making. This is not the Supreme Court we are dealing with.

The Supreme Court we are dealing with today is just another partisan battleground, only one where popular opinion is irrelevant. The Republicans seem to have picked up on how crucial it is to have a majority of judges agree with your views. Clarence Thomas was nominated by George Bush 41 at the age of 43. Many have speculated that he did this to ensure a conservative voice in the court for the longest possible times. Justices Alito and Roberts were nominated at the relatively young ages of 55 and 50 respectively. They will be sitting on that court, for better or worse, for a very long time. To put this in perspective, Judge Wood will be 60 next year.

Though she may be the most qualified candidate for the Supreme Court, do we really want someone who may retire in twenty years? This seems like a long time, but 59 Democratic votes in the senate are somewhat like Haley's Comet, they come around every 75 or so years but you usually don't do anything about it anyway.

Food for peace or food for profit?

The United States is by far the largest food donor in the world. With less than 1/10 of the world population we donate 59.2% of all the food aid. This seems mighty generous of us if we weren't making so much money out of it. The agribusiness and shipping lobbies both heavily support our current food aid policy. This is because they drive down prices for American consumers, increase profits for large farms, and ensure a market for the huge surplus that American agriculture produces each year.

The food aid that America gives goes mostly through a program called Food for Peace which was created in the 1950s by the Eisenhower Administration. It facilitates the use of taxpayer funds to purchase surplus food stock from farmers and the donation of this food to foreign governments. The food aid comes in emergency and non-emergency situations. Emergency situations are those that we see about on the news; floods, famines, wars, etc. Non-emergency situations are those where people suffer from chronic hunger and malnutrition. It is estimated that 80% of all U.S. aid is designated for non-emergency programs.

This sounds perfect, right?. American farmers receive money to ensure that they stay in business and less economically developed countries (LEDCs) receive food at extremely low costs. Well it isn't perfect. The influx of cheap food into LEDCs has undermined their markets, driving food prices through the floor. Farmers then go out of business because of reduced income, adding to rural poverty that is already at intolerable levels. Once the agricultural sector of the country has collapsed, they become reliant on U.S. food aid. This process may help large agribusiness in the United States, but for most of the world it is a pretty raw deal.

Even in the United States this is a problem. Because only large farms can produce the types of surpluses that are bought by the federal government. Large agribusiness stands to profit from these subsidies, leaving small farmers in the dust. The subsidies essentially tilt the playing field in favor of the large agribusinesses.

If we really international development to be the central goal of our food aid program, this policy has to be scrapped. A program of agricultural credit or an extension system would be much more beneficial to food security in impoverished nations. It would also develop local agricultural markets, reducing the need for food aid in the future. The only thing we know is, what we're doing now sure isn't working.

All we have is government in times like these

Conservative criticisms of the role of the federal government couldn't come at a worse time. A BP oil platform is currently spilling thousands of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico because of lax safety standards, financial firms overstretched causing one of the biggest stock market crashes in history, health-insurance companies are dumping cancer patients, and wages/benefits are falling at record levels. These don't seem to be problems with the federal government. In fact, they seem to have come about because business has controlled the stage for too long. The BP spill is worsened by a $75 million cap on oil company cleanup liability. The financial crisis was arguably caused by the repeal of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.

I don't think anybody can successfully argue that big business is working for America. Deregulating big business is the least effective way to reverse the trend of economic and environmental decline in America. Neither is criticizing the role of government. Though Americans are fed up with government right now, nobody is stressing the fact that people are fed up that the government is not working. This can be interpreted as a frustration at the failure of government action, rather than the intrusion of the government in peoples' lives. Big business is undoubtedly even less popular than big government right now, among even the right.

We have to remember that ultimately, a corporation can make bad decisions and go out of business. If government makes bad decisions and goes out of business, we get Somalia.

Lets help resurrect the New England Republican

The New England Republican is an endangered species these days, being forced out of their own party by a Southern Republican party far more conservative than it. This is not to say that there aren't anyone who is a Republican in New England anymore, on the contrary, there are far more Republican leaning people in a liberal state like Vermont than one would think. The big problem for the New England GOP is that these Republican voters aren't voting Republican in federal races. The prime example of this is the election of Bill Owens to fill the seat of John McHugh. The Republican candidate was Dede Scozzafava though she was eventually forced out of the race by Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, handing the Democrats a victory in the conservative NY-23.

So why do I argue that we should be resurrection a moderate GOP? What benefit does this bestow on the progressive agenda? First of all, let me open by saying that Medicare passed the senate with at least 10 Republican votes. Where did these votes come from? The answer is moderate areas like New England. Progressive strategists hailed Howard Dean's 50 state strategy that attempted to make the Democratic Party competitive in every area of the United States. This works well when there is a landslide and ample campaign funds, not so well for most election years.

This leads me to believe that we should prioritize investments in candidates that are running against conservative candidates in areas where they are the only liberal candidate. Lincoln Chafee, a liberal Republican senator, was unseated in 2006 with help by the DNC and the DSCC. Why are we, as a Democratic Party, wasting money to oppose people who already vote with our party most of the time? A much better use of the money would be to protect and capture seats that would be occupied by conservative Republicans if they were not represented by Democrats. This would also increase the number of GOP moderates, leading to legitimate bipartisan cooperation and possibly a softening of the GOP leadership's ability to rigidly control its members' voting patterns. Olympia Snowe commented after Arlen Specter's primary switch;

"I've always been deeply concerned about the views of the Republican Party nationally in terms of their exclusionary policies and views towards moderate Republicans."

By investing in races opposing conservative republicans, we could help change the GOP back into a party that we can work with in solving the country's issues. We won't get back our New Deal Coalition, but we can try to emulate its strategy.

Hawaii special election reveals absurdity of single member House districts

Ed Case (D), Colleen Hanabusa (D), and Charles Djou (R) are currently competing for the vacant seat of Neil Abercrombie (D-HI). What is unusual about this is the presence of two Democrats competing in a heavily Democratic state. Ed Case is a former Representative who caucused with the conservative Blue Dog Caucus. Colleen Hanabusa is the state senate president and known to be the most progressive candidate in the race. Since Hawaii has a plurality election system, meaning the candidate with the most votes automatically wins, the Democrats could win a combined 51% of the vote and still lose to the Republican candidate. Lets look where it stands.

Charles Djou (R) 36%

Ed Case (D) 34%

Colleen Hanabusa (D) 20%

Undecided 13%

Poll: Harstad Strategic Research

The polls show Charles Djou leading the election with Ed Case a close second. Colleen Hanabusa falls behind, only receiving 20% of the vote. Ed Case and the DCCC are arguing that he is the stronger candidate to face the Republican candidate. Obama has stopped short of endorsing Case by releasing a poll showing him as the stronger candidate. In this poll, the two Democrats receive at least 56% of the vote, even without undecideds. Does this make sense to hand a Republican victory to the Republican ticket even when they received around 1/3 of the popular vote? This has happened in Vermont when the Democratic and Progressive tickets split the liberal vote to reelect Republican Governor Jim Douglas and more recently in New York with the election to replace John McHugh. Runoff elections are the easiest way to solve a problem like this, but proportional representation based on partisan vote share is the most fair way to remedy vote splitting.

Offshore wind farms don't have oil spills

Just saying.

Hmm.. I wonder why the financial industry is donating to Democrats

The Republicans love every chance they get to jump on the fact that Democrats have benefited from Goldman Sachs campaign contributions. Now with the news that hedge funds are donating mainly to Democrats, these attacks should intensify. The Democrats are pursuing the first push to regulate Wall Street in decades. And why should the hedge funds donate to Republicans? They can pretty much take for granted that Republicans will have their back. They have for the last year. Why should they donate to a minority that thinks it has no incentive to back a regulatory bill in the first place? You won't see the Republicans jumping on the bandwagon any time soon, they are all but irrelevant in the debate.

Lets stop wasting our money protecting Europe

While watching the debate between Scott Brown and Martha Coakley during the special senatorial election to replace Ted Kennedy I noticed both Scott Brown (R) and the Libertarian Kennedy argued for spending cuts in social programs to reduce the deficit. I don't think there is any disagreement between economists these days that spending cuts will be needed to decrease the record deficit we are stuck with. The disagreement among our politicians and civil society is where to find these budget cuts. I have argued that strategic budget cuts and strategic tax increases can both reduce the deficit and improve the economy as a whole. An example of this is a new carbon tax and cuts in the oil subsidies the federal government now gives out to lower the cost of oil. This would have the effect of reducing carbon emissions without actually addressing the issue.

One area nobody is talking about when it comes to budget cuts is defense spending. I'm not talking about cutting funding for our troops abroad, halting research in new technology, or somehow putting our troops in danger. I'm talking about reconsidering our commitments under NATO and other protective treaties. We currently hold obligations to defend most of Western Europe, a monumental task requiring endless manpower and capital. Right now, the United States contributes nearly 50% of NATO's total defense spending. We have one of the highest per capita military expenditures in the world, estimated at around 934.9 billion dollars in 2009 alone.

So how does this compare to the military expenditures of other NATO member nations?

Source: Congressional Research Service

The United States clearly shoulders a disproportionate share of NATO's military spending. Though this could be justified during a prolonged diplomatic rift with the USSR, in this day and age Europe should pay for some of its own defense. The United States is consumed with its worst budget deficit in decades. Cutting military spending doesn't have to involve reduced capacity to fight our ongoing wars or a compromised national security. It simply means dumping some of the responsibility for defense on the countries that will actually benefit from it.

Lets remember that Obama is still the most popular national politician

People love to jump on President Obama's falling poll numbers as a sign that the public are rejecting his policies. I don't deny that this is partially true. Many of the people originally happy about Obama were supportive his personality and life story rather than his policies. This being said, Obama is still by far the most popular person in Washington DC right now. According to the Reasearch 2000/Daily Kos poll taken last week, Obama has a 55% favorability rating. This contrasts with a 24% and 22% favorability rating for John Boehner and Mitch McConnell respectively. Congressional Republicans enjoy a staggering 22% favorability rate whereas Democrats stand at 38%. So for those of you who jump on the Obama is sinking bandwagon, remember that everyone else has already sunk.

The gap between public opinion and fact when it comes to the Obama administration

Barack Obama has done more things since becoming president than many of his predecessors. These include the stimulus act, health-care legislation, the biggest expansion of wilderness areas for decades, an expansion of SCHIP, among other accomplishments. It can be argued that Obama has made more changes to the current American system than any president since Ronald Reagan. It is interesting to see how an uninformed public interprets these changes, being as complex as they are. These responses vary from confused to misinformed to generally informed. When you have a public that does not respond to anything other than 60 second news stories, it is hard to convey the policies your government has enacted.

I have a habit of having intense partisan arguments with people in parties, and doing this in Vermont has given me a new perspective. It seems that liberally minded people are relatively informed about what Obama has done. This is predictable. The real problem is where independents and conservatives fall on this spectrum. They clearly have responded to the calls of socialism by fox news. One person claimed that Obama was trying to abolish social security. Another claimed that his administration has restricted gun ownership. Neither of these are true. Obama has consistently voiced opposition to the privatization of social security and has vowed to strengthen the program. When it comes to gun rights, Democrats have given conservatives many victories on this front to avoid 1994-like cultural conflicts.

Most liberal bloggers love going after fox news, and I am no different. Having a conservative perspective does not mean twisting the facts to appease a crowd angry with having a moderate president. Fox News and liars of their ilk are not the real problem here. The problem is a general public that does not question what it hears and does not care enough to do simple fact checks.

My question is: what will it take for America to wake up?