The definition of free trade is relatively straightforward: trade in which prices are not distorted by tariffs and subsidies, or restricted by quotas or other forms of non-tariff barriers (besides those necessary for public health and safety). The logic behind free trade is also simple: it results in lower prices, which benefit the world economy.

Countries throughout history have avoided free trade in order to bolster certain sectors of their economy at different stages of development. Today’s developed countries once employed high tariffs to protect domestic producers, and still rely on various subsidies. Developing countries feel the need to protect their industries from more efficient outside producers.

There is healthy debate about the extent to which protectionist policies have helped developing countries. Some researchers point to the interventionist policies of today’s Asian powers as evidence that free trade is not the best path for developing nations. Others point out that the protectionist policies employed over many decades in Latin America have had at best mixed results.

There is a general consensus, however, that over time the world should move in the direction of freer trade. The transition will not be painless; there will be many losers, especially the unproductive agricultural sectors of the developing world.

Even though agriculture’s share of GDP is decreasing throughout the world, in many countries agriculture still employs a disproportionate share of the workforce. Developing countries, particularly China, are worried that more imports of cheaper food will put their farmers out of work and lead to massive unemployment. This is a legitimate fear, and explains why phased-in commitments and assistance for the transition period have been part of the WTO Doha negotiations. In addition, developed countries have agreed to cut their agricultural subsidies in exchange for lower tariffs abroad.

In the latest round of the Doha negotiations, China wanted to include a safeguard to raise tariffs significantly if imported food starting flooding their markets. The Chinese suggestion was refused because it went against the reason for lowering tariffs in the first place. This led to a deadlock which has derailed the negotiations for at least another year.

From an economic perspective, these trade talks have been bizarre because they rely on a mercantilist mindset: countries will only agree to reduce their protectionism if others do so as well. In reality, each country would be better off if it unilaterally moved towards freer trade.

Agricultural subsidies in the U.S., the EU, Canada, Japan, and South Korea are a particularly egregious form of corporate welfare. They artificially depress world prices, lead to over-production, and degrade the environment. All these countries would be better off if they eliminated subsidies regardless of what other nations do.

High tariffs force China, India and other developing countries to pay higher prices for food. Lowering their tariffs would reduce both food prices and inflation. If done slowly over a period of time, dislocations could be minimized and investments made in more productive agriculture and other forms of employment.

I would venture that 90% of Americans lack a basic understanding of free trade. Increasingly, they seem to believe that freer trade (particularly NAFTA) is responsible for many of America’s economic ills, e.g., lost manufacturing jobs and stagnating wages. Blaming “unfair foreign competition” is an old game in politics, and plays into other xenophobic fears.

Ironically, it is America that for decades preached the benefits of free trade and free markets to the rest of the world. Now, with our own economy hitting a bump in the road, Americans are lashing out in frustration. The truth is that U.S. consumers have benefitted tremendously from lower trade barriers; the average American probably saves several hundreds of dollars per year because of these lower prices.

Stagnating wages and job losses have not been caused by freer trade. They have been caused by technological innovation, increasing returns to education, and, in the case of the U.S. auto industry, persistently short-sighted management.

More protectionism by the U.S. would not raise American wages or restore American jobs. It would only raises prices and weaken our economy further.

The fact is that in our increasingly globalized and technological age, people without college educations (and more advanced degrees) are going to fall further behind. We need to engage in a serious discussion about education reform, put in place public policies to assist with lifetime education, and work towards increased safety nets. It’s wrongheaded to evade the real issues, and blame free trade for our woes.

Jason Scorse

The Republican Party has morphed into an organization so corrupt that it needs to be completely repudiated at the polls. Only then will true conservatives, who hold honorable and intellectually defensible positions, be able to retake their party.

I’ve lost track of exactly how many party officials have been indicted. Just last week we learned of illegal GOP practices in the Justice Department. Monica Goodling, an incompetent sycophant, was put in charge of hiring DOJ attorneys. She put political loyalty over national security, refusing to hire a highly-qualified terrorism expert because he was married to a Democrat. In addition, she blacklisted gay staff workers and ran her office more like a crony front for the Bush Administration than the nation’s top legal department.

This same week, a man broke into a Unitarian Church and started shooting people with a shotgun, killing two, because he was angry with liberals. Books by Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage were found in his home. Imagine what the media, especially the rightwing media, would’ve done with this story if the person had been a liberal who owned books by Michael Moore and Richard Dawkins. For all the talk about leftwing radicals and extremists, it is the far right that routinely resorts to violence, fueled by the non-stop hatred coming from rightwing talk radio and Fox News.

Some may argue that it is neither fair nor balanced to lump the far right with the Republican Party. I beg to differ; it is hard to tell where one ends and the other begins. Fox News is essentially a talk shop for the Republican Party and the White House; Scott McClellan has confirmed this. Karl Rove, whose politics of division helped Bush get to the White House twice (and who has just been held in contempt by the House), is now advising McCain’s campaign. Rush Limbaugh and rightwing talk radio are probably the biggest “get out the vote” operations for the Republican Party.

In addition, senior members of the GOP are on record over the past decade routinely making asinine and inflammatory statements: they have bashed gays, openly threatened the judiciary, called global warming a hoax, lied about oil drilling and gas prices, etc., ad infinitum. All this on top of the epic incompetence of the Bush Administration, which will take decades to fully document and comprehend.

There is a historical parallel here. Until Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, the Democratic Party was dominated by Southern racists who exercised a stranglehold on party policies. They clung to segregation and overt racism, creating a culture of fear and violence that led to the deaths of hundreds of blacks and numerous white supporters. When Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, racist whites almost instantly began to desert the Democrats. This weakened their power base in the once-Democratic “Solid South,” ultimately leading to the ascension of the conservative movement and the election of Ronald Reagan.

While the loss of the South dealt a political blow to the Democrats, it has worked to the party’s long-term benefit. The party is far from perfect, but excising its bigoted and reactionary members was the right thing to do. Now, in 2008, it is on the brink of nominating America’s first black candidate for president.

Hopefully, the Republican Party will be thoroughly discredited in this election. The far right will descend into the dustbin of history, where it belongs. Only then can the Republican Party jettison its association with religious extremists, bigots, and hate-mongers, regain its tradition of true conservative principles, and once again be a strong voice for American values.

Until then, I am officially ending my commitment to non-partisanship. The modern GOP must be defeated at the polls, and begin its long-overdue renewal.

This does not mean, however, that from now on I will only sing the praises of Democrats. Next week I’ll be looking into free trade—an issue where by and large the Republicans have it right and the Democrats have it wrong.

P.S. Coincidentally, Paul Krugman seemed to be thinking the same thing this week.

Jason Scorse

In my twenties I was a pacifist; I believed that violence, particularly military violence, was counterproductive and unethical. I could accept violence in self-defense, but I believed (and still do) that few wars met this criterion. My rejection of violence extended to the death penalty, which seemed barbaric in a civilized society.

These views have changed over the years, especially since 9/11. Since that time I have examined in some detail the nature of oppressive regimes and the monsters they produce (for example, the Lebanese terrorist whom the Israelis just swapped for the bodies of their soldiers).

Here are my still evolving thoughts on issues in which violence is central; I find them the most difficult to grapple with, both as an individual and as a member of society):

1. The Death Penalty

I now believe there is nothing morally wrong with the death penalty for certain crimes. Some acts are so abhorrent that the persons who commit them forfeit their right to continue living.

Yet I remain opposed to the death penalty, for two reasons:

First, it is impossible to apply uniformly. There are always racial and class biases, which make it inherently unjust. While the same might be said for our criminal justice system in general, we need to be especially careful when it comes to the ultimate penalty.

Second, the death penalty serves little purpose besides revenge. Its deterrent ability is nil or negligible. Life imprisonment, an alternative sentence, gives society ample means to protect itself against future crimes.

2. Pre-emptive war

As discussed in earlier pieces, pre-emptive war is already countenanced by the international community and international law. If a country is going to be attacked, it has the right to strike first. This doctrine has most famously been used by the Israelis: in the 1967 war, in air strikes against Iraq’s nuclear facilities in 1981, and recently against Syria’s nuclear facility.

Pre-emptive war strikes me as reasonable and just, especially against actors who are clearly intent on attacking a peaceful nation and clearly developing the capacity to do so. I would extend this logic a step further: nations have the right to assassinate foreign leaders or military personnel directly involved in terrorist activity against that nation.

For example, if Iran is arming militia groups that are targeting Americans or Israelis, Iranian leaders then become legitimate targets. Those leaders have declared war by proxy against America and Israel, and can be treated accordingly.

This does not mean that I think it would be wise to attack Iranian leaders. It means that there is nothing immoral about killing leaders who are actively engaged in killing your military personnel and threatening your civilian population.

What is not moral is preventative war, the doctrine which the Bush Administration used to justify the Iraq invasion (though they called it a pre-emptive action). Preventative war occurs when one nation strikes another nation based on the possibility of a future attack. Iraq posed no real threat to the United States. If wars could be justified based on no more than conjecture about potential threats, total chaos would ensue.

3. International Military Actions

Although the Iraq War did not meet the criterion for a pre-emptive war, what about Saddam’s crimes against humanity? Did those justify the overthrow of his regime? What about the atrocities of the Sudanese government? Or the Burmese or Zimbabwean governments?

The answers are far from clear.

Let’s start with the moral issues. If a ruler commits crimes against a country’s own people, e.g., mass murder and genocide, I believe there is nothing immoral in taking out that ruler and his or her party by force. There would be nothing wrong with taking out the Sudanese government or the Zimbabwean government or the Burmese junta; in fact, a strong case could be made that this would be the moral thing to do.

But there are major complications with carrying out such a policy. The first reflects our failure in Iraq: we removed a despot only to incite sectarian strife that has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and devastated the country. There is little doubt that the Iraqis have suffered more over the past five years than if Saddam had remained in office (even though the country may be better off in the long run).

Another moral question is the extent to which the lives and treasure of one nation should be sacrificed for the benefit of another nation. Citizens everywhere are right to question whether their governments should send them to fight and die in other lands simply for humanitarian reasons.

Countries rarely base their military actions on humanitarian grounds. Instead they cite national security interests, which makes their actions palatable to the home-country public. This explains why America has been so involved in the Mideast (the oil-producing center of the world) and so relatively uninvolved in Africa (where the violence and atrocities have been even greater, but where U.S. economic interests are far less).

I’m personally not happy that America’s military involvement is usually limited only to places where there’s a perceived nexus between national security and economic goals. On the other hand, is it really the business of America to eradicate evil wherever we find it, whenever we find it? Even if we wanted to, even if we decided this was the moral thing to do, where would the resources come from?

Tough questions. Difficult choices. No easy answers. Even if international actions against oppressive regimes may be moral, it does not mean that they are either practical or should be a priority for a nation-state.

Jason Scorse

In March of last year I described the sorry state of international affairs in the piece, “If the U.S. won’t lead, no one will.” Recent events have only demonstrated the truth of these words, and the extent of the international community’s moral vacuum.

Take Zimbabwe. Last month Robert Mugabe’s party literally killed, beat, and raped to stay in power, making a mockery of democracy and the rule of law. A U.S.-sponsored Security Council resolution to impose sanctions on the Mugabe regime was swiftly vetoed by Russia and China. The Mugabe regime proudly declared the defeat of the resolution a “victory against racism,” showing once again that any criticism of developing-country despots is immediately written off as a colonialist/imperialist plot; in fact, Mugabe’s party plastered the cities with posters showing the opposition leader juxtaposed against images of George Bush and Gordon Brown.

The UN effort was not alone in failing. The African Union (particularly South African President Mbeki), proving once again unworthy of the international stage, allowed Mugabe a place at its most recent summit and said not a word about the unfolding election situation in his country.

The roles of Russia and China on the world stage continue to be extremely troubling as they stymie efforts by the U.S. and the EU to deal with emerging security threats and humanitarian crises, including those in Iran and Sudan. When international pressure and possible condemnation are on the horizon, for almost any autocratic and repressive regime, Russia and China rush to the rescue. They block action and sometimes even provide material support.

China’s role in Sudan is particularly unconscionable; they are not only blocking efforts to impose sanctions on the Sudanese regime, but actively arming and training the Sudanese military as it continues its genocidal rampage. As someone who just visited China and strongly supports its economic rise, it is extremely disturbing to see the government use its newfound international prominence in such destructive and immoral ways.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) took a step in the right direction last week in calling for the arrest of Sudan’s president, but this largely symbolic act will likely do little to stop the bloodshed, and may actually increase it. The recent arrest of one of Serbia’s most notorious war criminals, who will now stand trial at the ICC, is a victory for justice and human rights, but has more to do with Serbia’s desire to join the EU than respect for international norms.

Two weeks ago Thomas Friedman made many of the same points I’m making in his Sunday editorial, but he also chose to highlight the relative unpopularity of America abroad as evidence that world opinion polls are essentially meaningless. While I clearly agree with many of his primary points about the international leadership vacuum, his secondary point about public opinion is misguided.

Americans shouldn’t care about world opinion because we want to win global popularity contests, but because it influences our ability to act on the world stage. When large numbers of people abroad don’t like us they vote and support more anti-American political groups (and sometimes extremist organizations), who then make it much harder for us to build coalitions and rally the world for good causes. I don’t want to overstate this point, but it is something frequently missed by people on both the left and right.

Americans will soon have a chance to elect new leadership in the U.S. and chart a new course for the world community. Neither Obama nor McCain will be able to solve all of the world’s problems; at the same time, it is sobering to realize how much worse the world situation would be if the U.S. didn’t take the lead in world affairs.

P.S. One just needs to look at the composition of the U.N. Human Rights Commission to see the contradictions in the current international framework that makes action against tyrants extremely difficult.

Jason Scorse

Academics use a number of election prediction models, and almost all rely on macroeconomic variables—GDP growth, inflation, unemployment, etc. Most of these models predicted a Gore win in 2000 (which was actually correct since he won the popular vote) and a Bush win in 2004. At the moment the models predict a resounding Obama win in 2008, based on dreary economic news as we head into the election.

Obviously these models are not 100% accurate; their architects freely admit that factors such as wars, disasters, and issues of character also influence voting patterns. But they stick by their fundamental insistence that it is the economy which ultimately dictates election outcomes.

In aggregate, there is little to dispute about these models. If Americans are feeling good about their economic prospects, by and large they can be expected to vote for the candidate who represents the party in power; if they think their economic prospects are dim, they will vote for the opposing party.

But hidden behind the national numbers are huge state-by-state and regional disparities that can’t be explained by economics alone. In huge swaths of the South as well as parts of the Midwest (e.g., Utah) the GOP has consistently outpolled Democrats by margins that correlated poorly if at all with economic factors.

It is these areas where “culture war” issues and race play a major factor, often turning economics into a secondary and even a tertiary issue. Large numbers of voters in these regions are genuinely more concerned about gay marriage, the government taking away their guns, abortion, the perceived dilution of American culture because of illegal immigration, and fears of an even more secular America. While the economy may still influences these voters, their ballots often end up going to the candidates who promise a kind of cultural security which they feel is slipping way.

Some political observers, like author and WSJ columnist Thomas Frank, take this as evidence that people have been duped into voting against their economic interests, when in fact it is evidence that these people simply give priority to issues other than economics.

When rich investment bankers in New York vote Democratic, nobody says they’ve been duped, even though they may very well be voting against their immediate economic interests since Democrats generally favor higher taxes for the rich*. If asked to justify their votes, these well-off Democrats might cite the party’s liberal social positions or less belligerent foreign policy; in exchange for these positions, they’re willing to accept higher taxes.

But when poor whites vote Republican because they oppose gay marriage or abortion, they’re assumed to be gullible. Unfortunately for Democrats and economic progressives, the disproportionate electoral sway of America’s Deep South and Midwestern states hands these “values” voters extra weight both in the Electoral College and the Senate.

In the end, it’s hard to accept any uni-causal case for the election of a U.S. president. There are too many factors, too many cross-currents, and it’s impossible to sort them out. The economy ultimately may swing the election, and certainly it will be more important than it was in 2004; but there are many motivations that can sway people on the margins, and have large electoral impacts.

As the Democrats have learned, in order to truly be competitive in certain parts of the country they have had to tone down their gun control rhetoric, speak more openly about faith and religion, and walk a fine line on gay rights (opposing gay marriage while supporting civil unions). This is what many voters in these regions want to hear, and the strategy has begun to pay dividends: Democrats are winning elections for state offices and Congressional seats in once-solid GOP territory, and Obama is competitive in states that haven’t voted Democratic for 40+ years.

The Republicans are in a much more difficult position because America overall is more socially liberal and economically progressive than the mainstream GOP. The party’s success this decade in some sense represents an anomaly; Bush actually lost in 2000, and won in 2004 largely because of a fearful citizenry that wanted to support a “war-time president.” Looking forward, it is hard to see how the far right’s message will resonate with voters, especially younger voters whose only taste of GOP rule has been an administration characterized by epic incompetence, cronyism, anti-intellectualism, and economic downturn. It will be interesting to see how the GOP retools, especially if they lose big in November.

Stay tuned….

*Wealthy individuals voting Democratic might be right to think that their long-run economic prospects under Democratic rule will be better than under Republican rule even if their immediate economic interests take a hit.

P.S. See here for a very interesting analysis of economic performance under Democratic and Republican administrations; it may surprise you.

Jason Scorse

Last month the world got a glimpse into Karl Rove’s mind when he said this about Obama:

"Even if you never met him, you know this guy. He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by."

Put aside that most Americans have never been inside a country club, or the fact that a black man could easily face discrimination at such an institution. If we substitute “school dance” for “country club,” and picture a 17-year-old Karl Rove as one of the passersby, it’s not hard to imagine this scene playing out: Rove is the nerdy loser who never gets the girl, who has to bear the taunts of better looking and more popular students, and he’s emotionally scarred by the experience. Viewed through this lens, we can better understand his lifelong quest to get back at all those who made him feel so low as a teenager.

The same goes for one of America’s most annoying pseudo-intellectuals, Jonah Goldberg, whose book “Liberal Fascism” reads like a 500-page poke in the eye at all the people who at some point or another threw the word “fascist” in his direction. Again, it is easy to imagine a young Goldberg sitting in his room alone at night, incensed, plotting how he was going to have the last laugh, no matter how ridiculous, inflammatory, or intellectually dishonest he needed to be.

So what’s the point of all this?

There are a few. First, as much as the readers of this site would like more reason and rationality in politics, the people who practice it are often motivated by just about everything other than the public good—a quest for power and attention, perhaps a profound sense of victimization and alienation (Tom DeLay, for instance, was a bug exterminator who became incensed at the environmental regulations he was forced to follow). And in politics, as in so much else, it is often the loudest voices which most influence policy, those who feel aggrieved, rightly or wrongly, who fight the hardest.

Finally, insecurity may be the strongest of all human emotions: a potent combination of fear, uncertainty, estrangement, and desperation. We all experience insecurity at some point in our life, sometimes throughout. Politicians and pundits who become adept at playing on our feelings of insecurity are often the most successful. Why? Because those who are insecure are often seeking explanations for their plight, consciously or not. They are quick to accept scapegoats and rationalizations (which is why minorities like gays, blacks, immigrants, atheists and today’s favorite, “intellectual elites,” are typically in the cross-hairs).

I am not sure how to combat the bad feelings that insecurity brings to the surface. The best antidote I know is a consistent and unyielding campaign to eschew excessive emotional appeals, to stick to facts and reasoned arguments.

But still I wonder: if Karl Rove had had a few more friends back in high school, maybe the world could have been spared the last eight years of the Bush Administration.

Jason Scorse

Americans are feeling pain at the pump; gas prices going into the July 4th weekend hit a record high national average of $4.09 for regular unleaded, up $1.14 from a year ago and roughly triple what it was when Bush took office. Oil has topped $145 a barrel and high fuel costs are leading to price increases across a wide swath of products.

But in truth, U.S. gas prices are low by world standards. As this chart shows, there are many developed nations where the average price of a gallon of gas is between $7 and $10.

Most of these nations are not being hurt as much by the current oil price shock because their governments were smart and made gas expensive long ago. This created incentives for better public transit, more fuel-efficient vehicles and industrial processes, and shorter commutes. For decades, many U.S. economists have been urging higher gasoline taxes for exactly these reasons; unfortunately, their advice has fallen on deaf ears.

As the price of oil plummeted in the 1990s, the SUV craze took hold and Detroit automakers ignored the lessons of the 1970s and 80s. Not only did these behemoths lead to more urban sprawl and less automotive safety, America’s carbon footprint grew enormously. Politicians of both parties took the myopic, short-term view. They could have seized on this period of low gas prices as an opportunity to phase in a higher gasoline tax, and move towards a more fuel-efficient and less oil-dependent society. They didn’t.

Fast forward to September 12, 2001.

Of the 19 hijackers who changed the world the previous day, 15 came from Saudi Arabia. We knew then that Saudi oil money financed extremist groups. Iran and Iraq, two other nations that represented serious national security challenges also relied on oil money, as well as Russia and Venezuela.

Given the growing threat of global warming, any serious U.S. effort in 2001 to reduce its oil dependency would have been warmly greeted by the world community, especially the Europeans. The massive investments in technology required for such an endeavor would have helped reinvigorate manufacturing in the U.S. and the American auto industry.

Instead, an administration run by oilmen told us that conservation is for hippies and that all America needed to do was go shopping.

Fast forward to the present.

Virtually all of the worst-case scenarios of 2001 have come to pass. Rogue, terrorist-sponsoring oil states are awash in cash, which they are using to fund groups hostile to America. Here at home, there’s a long list of problems: the economy is teetering on recession, auto sales are slumping sharply, with GM and Chrysler headed toward bankruptcy, and the U.S. has recorded its sixth straight month of job losses; at the same time, not coincidentally, the threat of global warming continues to accelerate. And while Bush and Cheney continue to beg the Saudis to open the taps a little more, the Saudis are putting pressure on us to raise interest rates (in order to strengthen the dollar) at a time when the financial sector would be further weakened by such a move.

And we have no one but ourselves to blame.

All of these outcomes were both predictable and avoidable. In April of 1977 President Jimmy Carter put forth a comprehensive energy policy that is amazing in its detail and prescience. In the speech Carter calls for collective sacrifice and warns us not to get sidetracked by the sudden drop in oil prices because of the need to plan for the long-run. Carter was largely scoffed at and ignored and now we have to live with the results (Nixon also devoted some of his 1974 State of the Union speech to energy issues, although he did not offer nearly as comprehensive an assessment of both the problems and the solutions).

Unfortunately, when it comes to sound energy policy the U.S. has been running on empty for way too long, and we’re going to have to suffer for a while before things turn around.

Jason Scorse

The following comment by Geraldine Ferraro may have been the stupidest of the entire primary season:

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

If Obama had an Anglo name and spoke with a Southern drawl, is there anyone in their right mind who doesn’t think he would now be ahead of McCain by 20 points in the national polls? And be ahead in at least 35 out of 50 states?

But Obama has a foreign name (including Hussein for a middle name), has lived abroad, has Muslim relatives, and is black; unfortunately, all of these factors represent serious drawbacks for him with a sizeable segment of the electorate. These are people who in 2008 remain at least slightly xenophobic, racist, or susceptible to accusations and insinuations that somehow Obama represents the “other”.

Think I’m exaggerating?

Just take a look at McCain’s first general election ad, which begins with the narration: “The American President Americans Have Been Waiting For.” If McCain is an “American President,” then what is Obama? An “un-American” president? This from the team that has said it wants to run a “clean” campaign, but won’t even try to control advertising by so-called 527s and other outside groups that are gearing up for what is likely to be one of the nastiest campaigns in recent memory.

There are numerous rumors already flying over the internet about Obama being anti-Semitic or refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, about Michelle Obama using the slur “whitey,” even questions regarding the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificate (all of which can be debunked at Fight the Smears).

While America has come a long way from its overtly racist past, there is simply no doubt that racial fears, conscious and unconscious, will play a major role in this election. This November will show us whether a solid majority of Americans will be able to resist the smears, the coded racist slurs, and the dumbing down of the real issues by a media bent on sensationalism (and let’s not forget to mention a rightwing attack machine that will do absolutely anything in order to win).

This is not to suggest that any vote for McCain is a vote prompted by racist fears, any more than the votes against Hillary were all due to misogynist leanings. We still have five months to go; there are likely to be many ups and downs over the campaign, and surprises could occur that might alter the fundamental dynamics of the race.

But if the underlying trends continue and Obama loses, it will likely be that an onslaught of negative and untruthful scare tactics tipped the balance against him.

That is a huge reason why this election is so important.

Is America truly ready to move beyond its racist past? Can we be led by our hopes, and not by our fears and prejudices? Election 2008 will provide a serious reality check, perhaps the most clarifying moment of a generation.

Jason Scorse

A spate of articles and books in recent months (e.g., Fareed Zakaria’s The Post-American World) raise the question of whether America will remain the dominant economic power in the coming decades; no one really doubts that America will remain the dominant military power. I just returned from a two-week trip to China, which got me thinking about the subject since one can’t fail to be impressed by the rise of this Asian power.

I am ambivalent about the issue. On one hand, as an American I want my country to remain strong and prosperous; but I also am an internationalist, and want to see prosperity spread across the world. Fortunately, it need not be a zero-sum game. American greatness can coexist with rapid wealth generation in the emerging markets.

In fact, an argument can be made that American wealth is partially dependent on the rise of the developing world: our historic low interest rates and (until recently) extremely low inflation are due in part to the high savings rates and low labor costs in Asia and the Middle East.

The key looking forward is to realize that American dominance is not some force of nature that is destined to continue. It is instead the result of specific policies and characteristics of the American economy and society that must constantly be revisited, revised, and maintained. Mistakes have been made that have weakened America’s economic position, but these mistakes can be rectified.

Here are four missteps, coupled with new opportunities, to consider as we look towards a new administration and getting back on the right economic track:

1. Nowhere has the failure of leadership been more damaging than in the U.S. auto sector. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have coddled Detroit; a combination of corporate mismanagement and intransigent, short-sighted unions has blocked all efforts at meaningful fuel efficiency for decades. Free-market advocates are finally seeing some vindication, decades late, now that high gas prices and tumbling demand for SUVs is forcing Detroit to see what thinking people have known for decades: fuel-efficient cars are the wave of the future. It is too early to tell whether Detroit will be able to recover, but there are encouraging signs: GM is pursuing plug-in electric vehicles, and both Obama and McCain support a cap on carbon emissions (although McCain oddly seems to forget that he does).

2. One way America has become so affluent is by recruiting the best of the best from across the world. Skimming the cream from countries across the globe has helped the U.S. to the highest living standards for any country remotely comparable in size. However, since 9/11, the enactment of anti-immigrant policies has slowed the influx of engineers, computer scientists, biochemists, doctors, et al. While tighter immigration controls are no doubt warranted, America should be expanding visa applications for the best and the brightest. This is an area that doesn’t make headlines, but it should be watched carefully.

3. Green technology, nanotechnology, and biotechnology are likely to be the leading areas for rapid growth and breakout products that dramatically impact global society. The U.S. nanotechnology industry seems in good shape, but our biotech industry has suffered under the anti-science policies promulgated by the Bush Administration at the insistence of the religious right. Legitimate moral issues related to cloning need to be addressed, but blocking embryonic stem-cell research that has the potential to cure major illnesses is both unwise and unconscionable. The embryos used in the process are already slated for destruction; in fact, a consistent “pro-life” stance would oppose fertility clinics, a fact which the right never mentions. Both Obama and McCain support lifting the ban on federal funding for stem-cell research (but given McCain’s numerous reversals and pandering to the right, I am not confident he will maintain this position; we’ll see).

4. The final issue is more long-term: America’s debt. America is the world’s most heavily indebted nation, both the government and the people. This has been possible because the rest of the world has sought the safety of U.S.-backed treasuries, but it will not persist indefinitely (especially as other countries begin to consume more and the emerging markets become more attractive for investment). High levels of American debt will inevitably result in higher domestic interest rates and lower economic growth. Higher taxes are also likely, especially if the federal deficit continues to rise. Neither Obama’s nor McCain’s fiscal plans make tackling the debt a priority, but McCain’s plan is much worse overall; it would increase the deficit by an estimated $5.7 trillion over the next decade. Regardless of what the government does, individual Americans should get their fiscal houses in order: we need to pay down our debts and increase our saving rates.

In conclusion, predictions of America’s economic decline are probably premature. At the same time, continued American dominance is in no way preordained. It will take hard work and sound policies; as always, a little luck wouldn’t hurt either.

Jason Scorse

In many parts of the world disagreements between groups are often settled through violence and mayhem. The singular achievement of liberal democracies is that we settle our differences through the political process and rarely resort to violence; this is no small feat.

But make no mistake: our current political battles represent life and death struggles. They include a woman’s right to choose, civil rights for gays, universal health care, global warming, and war policy. In short, choosing a president of the United States is one of the most consequential acts a citizen ever performs.

Every time we vote, we make serious moral judgments; there is no escaping this, since politics is little more than the act of converting public morals into public policy. Everything from tax rates to teacher pay to toxic chemical standards to social security payments is at its root a moral decision about what is right and wrong for society.

It should be clear that we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the last eight years, which have harmed so many millions both here and abroad.

Unfortunately, repeating these mistakes is what John McCain promises to do on virtually every issue. He has not only embraced the Bush economic policy, but his tax proposals are even more regressive and would result in more debt ($5.7 trillion); he has called for the overturning of Roe v. Wade and promised to appoint justices like Alito and Scalia (who not only would take away women’s reproductive rights, but whose views on the scope of executive power are truly frightening); he strongly supports the Iraq War and argues for an open-ended U.S. military occupation; he voted against the children’s health insurance bills and is ideologically opposed to any form of universal health insurance; even his support for climate change legislation is tempered by his support for windfall profits for the oil and energy industries.

As Albert Einstein noted, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. A vote for John McCain is a vote for more of the same disastrous policies.

I make no apologies for claiming that people who would vote for someone who doesn’t want to provide health insurance for poor children, who wants to further enrich the rich, and who thinks the Iraq War was a good idea, are taking positions which I consider both foolish and immoral. Political differences this great represent sharply opposing values and worldviews, and there’s nothing wrong with discussing them frankly.

In fact, America would be in better shape if people spoke up more often about injustice and incompetence without fear of being labeled strident or divisive. Mature people need not be afraid of offending others with direct talk, even if it sometimes includes recriminations (no doubt, all of us have probably done things or held views that we now view as foolish or unethical—it’s part of being human).

What separates ideologues and political hacks from reasoned critics is not the absence of strong language; it’s openness to opposing views, respecting people who don’t share our views, admitting that we could be wrong, and, of course, backing up claims with solid arguments.

In no small part, the reason that Democrats and progressives have failed to achieve many of their goals over the past decades is because they’ve failed to cast public policies in clear moral terms. Voters don’t often get excited over policy details, but they do get excited over principles.

Ironically, many of these Democrats and progressives (who have largely ceded all moral discourse to the religious right) are now worried that Obama’s “beyond partisanship” posture ignores the political struggles that will be required to enact his agenda.

They shouldn’t worry; Obama definitely gets it. He doesn’t believe that the entrenched interest groups and power centers will simply roll over for him.

His great gift is his ability to couch the major issues of the day in clear moral terms—what’s fair, what’s right, what’s sensible—and in this way appeal to the compassion and reasonableness of the American people.

He doesn’t need to convince every last American that his views are best. But by not shying away from making forceful statements about what’s right and what’s wrong, he very well may be able to convince a solid majority.

Jason Scorse