Significance of the 2012 Presidential Election

The significance of the re-election of Barack Obama  in 2012 is primarily that Mitt Romney (or any other Republican) was NOT elected president.  The election of Obama marks the continuation of the status quo, rather than a hard turn to the political right.  But the opportunities and challenges of the next four years will be different than the previous four years, and the ideology of the man in the oval office will have profound and lasting impact upon the country.

The Supreme Court

Four Supreme Court Justices are over the age of 74.  It seems likely that some of these judges will retire or pass away during the next presidential term. 

Supreme Court Justices                 Age                        Philosophy

Ruth Ginsburg                                   79                           Liberal

Antonin Scalia                                   76                           Conservative

Anthony Kennedy                             76                           Conservative

Stephen Bryer                                   74                           Liberal

Clarence Thomas                              64                           Conservative

Samuel Alito                                      62                           Conservative

Sonia Sotomayor                               58                           Liberal

John Roberts                                     57                           Conservative

Elena Kagan                                      52                           Liberal

The Court is currently relatively balanced.   The following graphic shows the voting record of Justices on cases heard in 2011.   Four justices nominated by Democratic presidents form a liberal  voting bloc, particularly on important and contentious cases.  The five justices nominated by Republican presidents form a conservative voting bloc, but with Anthony Kennedy occasionally voting with the liberals.

Modified from data presented here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_term_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Green and blue indicate judges voting with the court majority.  Red and purple indicate dissent.  Bold colors indicate written judicial opinions to be used as precedent by lower courts.

Future court cases are likely to involve abortion rights, health care and elder care, immigration, harassment of minorities, Influence by financial donors over legislators, environmental regulation, death penalty cases, police conduct, copyright law, and partisan actions of local governments.

Judges nominated by Obama will determine the philosophical leaning of the court for years, probably decades.   Given that judges can choose to retire when a president of their party is in power, control of these seats may persist even beyond the tenure of the new judges.  Obama’s power to nominate new judges will likely diminish corporate and big-money influence in politics; his nominees will be favorable with regard to women’s rights, minority and immigrants’ rights, public schools, environmental regulation and religious pluralism in America.

Foreign Policy

Obama has already demonstrated his direction in foreign policy.   Under Obama, foreign disputes are more likely to be handled through negotiation than confrontation.  Obama is willing to conduct covert operations in response to terrorist threats, but has been restrained in the use of military force.   By contrast, Romney would return to the aggressive polices of the G.W. Bush administration, confrontation with China, Russia, and the Islamic world, and unquestioned military support of Israel.    I believe the world will be a more peaceful place with Obama as president instead of Mitt Romney.

http://debatablypolitical.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-arms-race-against-world.html

Energy Policy and Climate Change

Republicans do not believe in man-made climate change.  Mitt Romney plainly declared “I like coal”.   By contrast, Democrats and Barack Obama believe that climate change is one of the most important issues facing mankind.   Under Obama, policies and taxes will be structured to favor renewable energy, and restrict the use of fossil fuels, particularly coal.

Immigration Reform and Minority Rights

The contrast between Obama and Romney is particularly striking in terms of immigration and minority issues.  Under Republicans, local governments would be given free rein to harass Hispanics and minorities in a variety of ways.  It is racism in the guise of law enforcement.  Under Obama, minority rights will be upheld.   Obama will also seek a resolution to the problem of ten million illegal immigrants living in the America.  Republicans have offered no ideas, no shred of a solution to the problem except to build a fence along our border with Mexico.   

Health Care

President Obama’s signature piece of legislation was the health care reform act extending health care insurance to thirty million Americans who had none.  With Obama’s re-election, Republicans will be unable to repeal the legislation before it is implemented and becomes part of how we live as Americans.

Taxation

Under Obama, the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans enacted under president Bush will be allowed to expire.   Tax rates for the wealthiest Americans are likely to rise, restoring these rates to levels considered reasonable in previous decades.

The Arms Race Against the World

Mitt Romeny's foreign policy advisors are from the same group of advisors which led the United States into war in Iraq.  The primary point of neo-conservative foreign policy  is to build military capability beyond challenge, but that level of military spending is unsustainable considering our current budget deficits.  It is an arms race against the world.
-----------------------

Maureen Dowd recently wrote a column about the Republican Presidential campaign and its advisors for foreign policy in the Mid-east.   Dowd received criticism for what some considered an anti-Semitic bias in her comments, and support from others who saw no bias. 

For my part, I think she was on-target.  Foreign policy under a Romney administration would be directed by the same group of Neo-conservatives that guided the Bush administration into Iraq.   I recall the Neoconservative vision that the Iraq war would cost less than $50 billion, and that pro-American democracy would spread from Iraq throughout the Middle-east.    You might say it’s funny how that worked out. 

The total cost of the war in Iraq to Americans is now estimated at over $3 trillion (not including costs to other nations, including Iraq).   As for the spread of pro-American democracy in the Mid-east, you can judge for yourself based upon recent events.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/dowd-neocons-slither-back.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/09/maureen-dowd-meets-antisemitism-charge-135700.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/09/the-critics-of-maureen-dowds-critics-135768.html

------

Let’s look at Neo-Conservative thinking with regard to foreign policy. 

Neo-conservative foreign policy is based on the idea that America is the world’s sole superpower, and should remain the world’s sole superpower.   The ideology is expressed as the “Bush Doctrine”, which is considered synonymous with Neo-conservative foreign policy.

There are four points to the doctrine.

1)  America should keep a military capability beyond challenge in the world.  Neo-conservatives believe that other countries will recognize America’s power as benign.  They believe that weaker countries will choose to align themselves with the United States, rather than opposing America’s military power.

2)  America holds the right to use pre-emptive (first-strike) military force, as considered necessary. 

3)  America will choose to act unilaterally as needed, bypassing the United Nations, bypassing the process of building an international consensus, and ignoring the opinion of the international community with regard to military action.

4)  America should promote democracy globally.   This facet of the policy was considered particularly important in the Islamic world, where democracy was considered a crucial element in combating terrorism.  Neo-conservatives believe that promoting democracy, by force if necessary, will create a safer and more pro-American world.

[Primary Source: The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War; http://www.aup.edu/pdf/WPSeries/AUP_wp61-WilliamsSchmidt.pdf]

The Neo-Conservative world-view ignores the realities of human psychology, the rights of other nations to self-determination, and the costs of carrying out this vision.

In considering a superpower with a commitment to pre-emptive military force and unilateral action, weaker nations are unlikely to consider America’s power as benign.  The Bush Doctrine creates fear, and provides every motivation to develop or acquire nuclear weapons, which may be the only weapons which could deter an American attack.  Thus every nation which might be potentially in opposition to the United States is motivated to build the greatest military capability as possible.  Further, neo-conservatives never considered the possibility that emergent democracies might be in greater opposition to America than the preceding dictatorships.

America’s military spending amounts to nearly 5% of annual GDP.    Our annual military spending is greater than military spending by China, Russia, Britain, France, Japan, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Brazil, combined (after adjustments for purchasing power).   In fact, America’s annual military spending exceeds the GDP of all but the top 18 nations on earth, at a time when we are running budget deficits which threaten to bankrupt the country.

Foreign policy under Mitt Romney as president would implement the same principles as foreign policy of the Bush presidency.   It would be directed by some of the same people who were involved in the Bush presidency.  And it would be informed by the same naïve beliefs that caused America to fail to distinguish between the secular, dictatorial government of Saddam Hussein with the theocratic religious fanatics of Al Qaeda. 

The recent events in Libya, and the responses by the presidential candidates provide a clear example of what can be expected from each candidate in the event of international crisis.   President Obama’s slow, careful, measured response produced the most meaningful results: Libyans themselves stormed the headquarters of the Islamist militias who killed the American ambassador.  Which is a more effective foreign policy than another American invasion.

-------
References:

I found criticism of the Neo-conservatives similar to Dowd’s piece in various places.   The Neo-conservative viewpoint is rooted in an arrogant idea of American infallibility, and American global military supremacy that we simply cannot afford.   Specific to the Mid-east, the Neo-conservative view supports the idea of Greater Israel.   Some suggest that we went to war in Iraq, not because Iraq posed a threat to the United States, but because Iraq posed a threat to Israel.

Views similar to Maureen Dowd’s can be found here:

Iraq:  A War for Israel; Mark Weber, Institute for Historical Review,

http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml

The Real Reason for the Iraq War; Lee Whitnum, author & congressional candidate

http://leewhitnum.com/Iraq_the_real_reason.html

The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War;

http://www.aup.edu/pdf/WPSeries/AUP_wp61-WilliamsSchmidt.pdf

Cost of Iraq War; Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html

Comparison of Obama's and Romney's response in regard to the crisis in Libya is found here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/opinion/sunday/friedman-the-world-were-actually-living-in.html?_r=0

Who are the Middle Class?

Who are the middle class in America?

A cornerstone of both Republican and Democratic presidential campaigns has been a pledge to not raise taxes on the middle class.   It is one of the most common themes of speeches by the candidates. But who are the middle class?   The middle third of household incomes?  One standard deviation, or the middle two-thirds?   Or two standard deviations, meaning the middle 95%?   

Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama agree on the third definition.  Mitt Romney recently stated that “middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less”, and promised to lower taxes for this group.  He stated further that the top 5% would pay the same amount as they pay today.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/09/14/mitt-romney-thinks-250000-a-year-is-middle-class-and-so-does-obama/

 Barrack Obama also drew his line at this point, promising to extend Bush-era tax cuts to the 98% of Americans making less than $250,000, and to increase tax rates on those with higher incomes.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/taxes/tax-cuts

Let’s look at a chart of household income.  The 2% of households making more than $250,000 are vanishingly small on the chart. 

 http://visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2005_income_distribution.gif

It seems to me that both parties have defined the “middle class” pragmatically, including almost everybody.  Both sides are careful to broaden the definition of the protected middle class up to $250,000, to include those with enough discretionary income to make political contributions.   They are heeding the advice of Quintus Cicero to promise everything to everybody. 

The U.S. Federal Budget and the Collapse of the Roman Republic

Rome Didn't Fall in a Day

Marcus Cicero was a philosopher, orator and statesman of the ancient Roman Republic.  It is said that Cicero had the greatest influence by any individual on European language, literacy and ideas.  Marcus Cicero rose through Roman society to become Consul, the highest position of the Roman Republic.  Cicero’s younger brother, Quintus Cicero, was a leading commander of the Roman army.

In the year 64 B.C., Quintus Cicero wrote a letter to his older brother Marcus, regarding Marcus’ political campaign for Consul.   The letter concisely states the themes of both ancient and modern politics.   Quintus advised Marcus to make promises liberally. “If you make a promise, the thing is still uncertain, depends on a future day, and concerns but few people; but if you refuse, you alienate people to a certainty and at once, and many people too.”

In other words, Promise everything to everybody.  [by translator P.Freeman, "How to Win an Election".]

Quintus also wrote about political issues of his time.   His text could be a letter to the editor in this morning’s newspaper.

“The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced, if the nation doesn't want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”  

----------

We are now in the silly season of American presidential politics.   

Both parties have nominated their candidates for president, written their platforms, held their conventions, made endless pleas for donations to run political advertisement.  Heeding the advice of Quintus Cicero, they have distorted and disparaged the record of their opponents, avoided clear discussion of the issues, promised everything to everybody, and lied liberally about everything.

Let’s look at the United States’ Federal budget for 2012

Federal spending is shown in the following chart.   Total spending is $3.894 trillion, or 26% of GDP.   

Social Security and Medicare represent about 32% of total Federal spending.  Defense and Veteran’s benefits are about 22%.  Interest on existing debt is 6%.  Together, these items are about 15.5% of GDP.

Tax receipts, according to the budget, are expected to be 2.469 trillion dollars.   A small increment of additional funding is found in the budget as line item 950, Undistributed Offsetting Receipts, adding about 98 billion dollars.   Total funding is thus expected to be $2.568 trillion dollars, or about 17 percent of GDP.

The total Federal deficit for 2012 is about 1.3 trillion dollars.  Federal spending exceeds tax revenue by an astonishing 51%.

Federal debt held by investors (“public debt”) is now about $11 trillion dollars, or about 72% percent of GDP.   Public debt is growing at a rate of about 20 percent per year, a rate that would double the debt in 3 ½ years.  Foreign investors hold $5.3 trillion, or nearly half of the public debt.   Obligations between government agencies, such as the social security trust fund, amount to an additional $4.7 trillion, bringing total Federal debt to $16 trillion (107% of GDP).

Against this backdrop, Republicans propose an amendment to the constitution requiring a balanced budget.  Mitt Romney proposes to cut marginal tax rates by 20 percent.  He also proposes raising Defense spending by about 5% (excluding war expenses), adding 100,000 members of the military, modernizing weapons, and building more ships and aircraft.   He said that budgetary changes will not affect current retirees or veterans.   

Defense, Elder-care programs, and Interest are about 60 percent of Federal spending.  If all tax revenues were applied to these categories with no reductions and a balanced budget, as proposed by Republicans, it would eliminate 83% of all other government functions.  This is without even considering the proposed tax cut.

We cannot eliminate 7/8ths of the functions of the Federal government to pay for defense and elder-care.   It is absurd.

Democrats have been equally negligent in providing a clear blueprint toward solution of the crisis.
Both sides are simply promising everything to everybody.   

It is clear that any solution to the budget crisis will require a combination of increased taxes, cuts to defense spending, and reductions in elder care.  And these changes must be implemented sooner rather than later.

---------

Marcus Cicero was successful in his election campaign.  He was elected Consul in the year 63 BC.  Shortly thereafter, the Roman Republic collapsed in a series of civil wars followed by dictatorship of the Caesars.   

Quintus Cicero, his son, and Marcus Cicero were declared enemies of the state and executed in 43 BC.  The Roman Empire continued as a dictatorship for four hundred years.
------------
Addendum:   A few days after I wrote this post, retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter was interviewed, as part of a civic education project in New Hampshire.  Souter is worried about 'pervasive civic ignorance' in America.   Here are his words.

"What I worry about is that when problems are not addressed, people will not know who is responsible.  And when the problems get bad enough - another serious terrorist attack, another financial meltdown - some one person will come forward and say, 'Give me total power, and I will solve this problem.' That is how the Roman Republic fell....That is how democracy dies.  And if something is not done to improve the level of civic knowledge, that is what you should worry about at night….I am not a pessimist, but I am not an optimist about the future of American democracy.”

David Souter, retired Supreme Court Justice, September 17, 2012

-------------

Quintus Cicero Quotes:

http://www.bartleby.com/73/1543.html

http://www.quotatio.com/c/cicero-quintus-tullius-quotes2.html

Federal Budget data:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget

http://budget.house.gov/budgetprocess/budgetfunctions.htm

http://budget.house.gov/budgetprocess/budgetfunctions.htm#function600

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Marcus and Quintus Cicero

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintus_Cicero

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Tullius_Cicero

Pamphlet on Electioneering, 
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_running_for_the_Consulship
also, How to Win an Election, (trans. P Freeman, Amazon.com)

http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Election-Ancient-Politicians/dp/0691154082/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347681795&sr=8-1&keywords=how+to+win+an+election+Cicero

Mitt Romney, Republican Platform

http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/

http://aboutmittromney.com/military.htm

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/17/where-obama-romney-stand-on-foreign-policy-challenges/

David Souter, interview

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/09/conversation-justice-david-souter.html