If You Can Spare Two Hours Between Now and November 4 ...

... watch this extraordinary Frontline documentary on the 2008 election (the whole thing is available online as a stream). I happened to tune in last night half way through the first hour and was mesmerized. I haven't yet seen anything as even handed and insightful as this documentary (not to mention the impeccable production standards and first-rate photography). Whether you lionize Obama (or hate him) or think McCain is the bee's knees (or can't stand the guy), your views will undoubtedly become more nuanced after watching this program. You won't find much here about their policy positions. But the program offers a fascinating perspective of the two men as politicians, conducting political campaigns. I'd love to see this become required viewing for anyone casting a ballot on November 4, whatever their political persuasion.

John McCain Rolls the Dice

Literally, that is. I can't say that I'm surprised at these revelations. In hindsight, it all makes sense: Sarah Palin, the "suspend-the-campaign" debacle: the man is a compulsive gambler. My only question is whether this sort of news will have any effect on the cultural conservatives who so vehemently oppose gambling as a moral vice. I've got a hundred to one that says that this won't have any impact on them at all.

The Beginning of the End

... of the McCain campaign, that is. Hopefully not the financial infrastructure. I happen to disagree with McCain's critics that claim he wanted to avoid debating Obama. McCain in fact had called for more debates than Obama would agree to. So I don't think he's running scared. But I think he is definitely trying to cut a dramatic image of a reformer who would put Country-Above-Politics®. By rushing off to Washington, he wants to burnish his image as someone who is in fact profoundly aware of the significance of the current crisis and try to undo some of the damage from his infamous statement last week that the fundamentals of the economy "are strong."

But I think McCain's histrionic performance probably marks the beginning of the end for his campaign. The wheels are coming off. And he continues to demonstrate he doesn't think that Palin is up to the job of assuming a more prominent role in his campaign: she is to be seen and not heard. I have a funny feeling that right about now senator McCain is regretting passing up a vice-presidential running mate with real economic chops (farewell, Mitt, we hardly knew ye...) in favor of Ms. Moose-Kill-Eye-Candy.

John McCain es un idiota.

Does John McCain (a) know that José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero is the current president of Spain? and (b) know that Spain is in Europe? It appears that the good senator is having a hard time distinguishing between the usual suspects in Latin America (Chávez, Morales, Castro) and the current Spanish head of state. In a recent interview with Cadena Ser radio network, McCain didn't seem to have the faintest idea who Zapatero is and thus waffled on whether or not he would meet with him as president of the United States (click here for an audio interview with McCain in Spanish). Now, it's okay that a politician doesn't spend his day texting and swapping viral videos with every foreign head of state in the world. But for heaven's sakes, Spain has had a significant role to play in the Iraq saga and should at least be on the radar screen of someone that wants to govern the United States. To be sure, Zapatero has his share of extremist detractors that would link him with the Latin American hard left (of course, for those people, anyone to the left of Pope Benedict is a commie and even he is a bit dubious at times). And Zapatero's relationship with Washington has been decidedly cool during his tenure. I happen to think that Zapatero is an idiot as well, for reasons I won't go into here. And, well, yes, he could pass for Mr. Bean's stunt double. But if he's an idiot, and if Hugo, Evo, and Raúl are idiots, they are so for different reasons. And there's no question that diplomatic protocol would dictate that Zapatero should be received at the White House.

So, here we are with a presidential ticket that thinks a refueling stop in a foreign country counts as a visit and is hazy on the difference between Spain and Latin America. Heaven help us.

"The 'Bush Doctrine'? You Mean His World View?"

What is this? An outtake from "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader"? Please, please, please tell me that this is a joke and that there is no chance that this person could become the most powerful political figure in the world. I mean, seriously, there's no chance of that ever happening. Right? Right?



Here's one blogger on how Palin probably crammed for this interview:

"I can just imagine a note card in her pocket.
Side A: 'Terrorists'
Side B: 'Hell bent on destroying America'"

I guess the positive spin on all this is that John McCain clearly believes that America should be the land of opportunity for absolutely everyone. Think I'm exaggerating? Lest you be tempted to explain this away by saying, "Yeah, but she's smart. She can get up to speed on foreign policy quick enough," here's James Fallows' take on what this slip tells us about how Palin might govern.

[update on 9/13: apparently some commentators have tried to make the point that the interviewer himself is unaware of what the term "Bush Doctrine" means and that Palin's request for clarification is perfectly appropriate. It's true that Gibson doesn't distinguish between preemptive military action in general and what's novel about the Bush Doctrine. But if you think that Sarah Palin had this sort of nuance in mind when she asked for clarification, you're ... --what's the word?-- oh, yeah. Deluded. Your clue should be her question whether "Bush Doctrine" means "Bush's world view." Go back and watch the clip and read Fallows, linked above. There is no room for respectful disagreement on this point: anyone arguing otherwise is just being obtuse or disingenuous. If you're a Palin fan, it's better to accept the criticism, cut your losses, and move on].

Popularity and Moral Authority

It is being reported, to the surprise of absolutely no one at all, that people throughout the world strongly prefer Barack Obama to John McCain. What, if anything, does this mean? In practical terms, perhaps not much. Such stories may even hurt Obama's popularity at home. Should this sort of data point be of any interest whatsoever to an American voter?

A case could be made that such things should be irrelevant to American voters. In the first place, it seems there's no reason to think that citizens of Panama or Indonesia or Italy would know much of anything about the policy positions of either candidate or that they are directly affected by them (although the latter point is perhaps more difficult than ever to make in a global economy). Indeed, American voters themselves are often woefully uninformed about the issues which most directly concern them: why should we think that citizens of other countries would have opinions worth hearing about our own presidential elections? In the second place, it could be argued that in competitive global labor markets, citizens of other countries might take an interest in a weaker, rather than a stronger, United States.

Of course Americans have generally given very little importance to foreigners' views on US politics (remember how John Kerry may have actually been hurt by his popularity with the French in 2004?). But should that be so? With respect to the first question--the degree to which foreigners are knowledgeable about the candidates--I don't have any firm basis upon which to draw conclusions. But I can say, having lived in Spain for some ten months between 2004 and 2007, that the foreign press covers American presidential politics extensively. The days leading up to the November 2004 presidential election were filled with almost non-stop coverage on the main television stations there. Take it for what it's worth, but my gut feeling--supported by admittedly modest anecdotal evidence--is that foreign observers are generally much more sophisticated and informed than we give them credit for in the US. Certainly there's no question that they're better informed about our domestic politics than we are about theirs (quick: who's the Canadian Prime Minister? The President of Mexico? The Prime Minister of Italy?).

With regard to the second point, I think we citizens of the US sometimes misunderstand anti-American sentiment abroad. I daresay--and no, I'm not gonna back this up with evidence here: I've got more important stuff I should be doing now!--that envy or resentment of the U.S. is fueled less by our economic prosperity than by a vague sense that the US has become politically, militarily, and culturally hegemonic and that the US perceives itself to be above international law and unanswerable to anyone or anything other than its own interests. That may be wrong. But it's certainly not good that such a sentiment is so widespread. I believe, and I suspect that I could back this up had I the time and the inclination, that we have unquestionably lost a great deal of what might be called our "moral authority" over the last eight years.

"So what?" some of my readers might say. "Who cares what foreigners think about us?" Well, I do, for one. As maudlin as it might sound to some, I think Reagan's "city on a hill" metaphor is inexplicably powerful and that it speaks to our "better angels." A real tragedy of Iraq in general and Guantánamo in particular is that they tarnish that image of a country guided by ideals rather than brute political calculation. I don't envy US diplomats assigned to convey to Russia our disapproval of their attempt to reassert control over Georgia. That's the sort of task that becomes more difficult when our rivals can gleefully point to the hypocrisy (whether perceived or real) of our own foreign policy. The point is not that popularity entails moral authority on any given issue: it is indeed possible to imagine a government taking a morally principled stance that is widely unpopular, just as one can admire a certain vice-presidential candidate's decision to keep a child rather than abort it, even if one does not share that candidate's policy views about the matter of abortion (and I'm definitely not making a point about abortion one way or the other here). But rather I'm claiming that moral authority is not altogether separable from perception: one must be generally perceived to be acting not in one's own self-interest (or at least not exclusively so) but rather in terms of a higher principle. In a nutshell, I think there's ample evidence that the US is widely perceived to be incapable now of acting out of anything but naked self-interest and I think that that perception is unlikely to change if John McCain is elected.

To be sure, foreigners may be spectacularly wrong about Obama: if he were to be elected they may decide that he's as bad, or even worse, than Bush (a logical possibility, if difficult to imagine). But to the extent that one cannot claim moral authority without being perceived to merit it, it stands to reason that we should take an interest in what others think of us. It would be too crude to say that we need to elect Barack Obama to make up for eight years of George Bush. But it wouldn't be entirely wrong either.

I'll blog some other time on the implications of the "war on terror" in terms of the popularity of Obama and McCain and the question of moral authority. Tune in later. Or, not.

This Just In ...

Senator John McCain has just announced his vice-presidential running mate, 44-year old Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who has served all of 18 months in that position, subsequent to serving on the Wasilla City Council and, later, as mayor. Rumor has it McCain had wished to choose a Chinese gymnast but was dissuaded by advisers because the Constitution stipulates that the candidate must have been born in the United States.