Civil Liberties and Privacy in Peril

This week has been troubling for our nation's civil liberties, namely the people's right to privacy and freedom from unwarranted government intrusion. On Monday, the Supreme Court allowed police  to gather the DNA of arrestees to help them solve unrelated crimes. That decision drew justified dissension from Justice Scalia and civil liberties groups. Besides its unsound application of Fourth Amendment precedents, the opinion gave too much deference to the police, as if pretending that the State would not abuse its power to collect DNA for ulterior purposes, and minimized the loss of privacy, which surely was great for arrestees. We shouldn't be less sympathetic just because arrestees are involved - any of us can be arrested and what rights taken from some are taken from us all.

Compound that is this week's revealing of massive surveillance of American citizens by their government and collection of communications records by the NSA. It has drawn justified debate about the extent of government surveillance necessary to protect Americans from terrorism while maintaining their civil liberties. And finally, President Obama and the politicians have to be candid about what's going on. What is discouraging is the muted response from Congress, with many politicians (besides Rand Paul) too spineless to criticize the NSA's actions. While the intelligence community and politicians will try to muzzle the media and informants, this timely revelation advances our ideals of a transparent government and having the people (through the press) check on their government.

These happenings are not surprising and shows what happens what the government has too much power and lacks transparency. The checks and balances prescribed by the Constitution failed because Congress lacks the will to speak up and investigate, the Executive Branch predictably stretched their powers under the Patriot Act, and the judiciary fails to be an independent check on the powers of government. In fact, the judiciary has done the people disservice by trusting the government to not abuse its powers, whether under the Patriot Act or the Fourth Amendment, and by shielding activities of the FICA from meaningful review. What will ultimately drive change will be the people. It might not be easy to advance the cause of civil liberties, especially when terrorist threats remain, but it is necessary to safeguard our right to privacy and check on the power of government.

Obama's victory and new mandate

President Obama's election victory is due in large part to the failings of the Republican Party and Mitt Romney. I think many voters, including the independents and undecided, are unsatisfied with the state of the economy and Obama's policies over the past four years. But Romney and the Republicans offered no viable and concrete alternative path besides the usual rhetoric of smaller government, lower taxes, and free enterprise. That explains why voters remain deadlocked on who would handle the economy better. Meanwhile, the Republicans' social policies are seen as outdated and impractical, and that drove many women, minorities, young and educated people to Obama. The country may still be center-right economically or fiscally, but it is more center-left on many social issues. If the Republicans do not take a serious look at themselves and address their social and economic platform's failings, they will only be trounced in later elections.

Thus, I think Obama won because the public stuck with "the devil you know" instead of "the devil you don't know" and the economy is at least mending. That doesn't mean he has a large mandate to govern, unlike in 2008, and he must work with a recalcitrant Republican House. First priority must be the impending fiscal cliff. Even if Congress finds a solution - and let's hope they do long before Christmas - the country needs a comprehensive solution to address the federal debt and entitlement spending. They are behemoths facing Obama and Congress in the next few years. Other issues are important as well - immigration, overhauling the tax code, energy and climate change. But four years go quickly and if Obama can accomplish comprehensive reform in only one or two of those areas, his second term may well be more fruitful than his first.

An election up for grabs, the downtrodden Red Sox, and Supreme Court balancing in the middle

I watched the first presidential debate in a pub on Wednesday and came away impressed with Mitt Romney. The onus was on him to put in a strong performance and he did in several ways. He showed a sense of urgency about the nation's problems, while showing his compassionate side and ability to understand. He was aggressive throughout and criticized President Obama without appearing solely partisan and obstructionist on every policy issue. Romney also gave some specifics about his policies, which allows wonks to dissect and contrast them against Obama's. Without doubt Obama's insipid performance helped Romney shine, and with Romney scoring the style points, I must wade through both contenders' policies for substance and see what they really want for the nation beyond the rhetoric.

Obama desperately needed Friday's jobs numbers and he got what he wished for. I think it will have a huge impact, especially on those undecided voters who are finalizing their choices right now. The jobs numbers, especially the drop in unemployment below the dreaded 8%, would shore up Obama's appeal and help him maintain an edge in the polls. Underneath though, all the papers and economists suggest that the jobs recovery remains steady but very slow. The two biggest barriers to jobs growth are 1) the fiscal cliff come January and businesses' uncertainty (and hence their reluctance to hire) and 2) ongoing weak demand from emerging economies such as China and recessionary Europe. Obama may be partly responsible for the former, but not the latter.

Onto our national pastime, the Red Sox finally put us fans out of our misery with an absolutely atrocious season. I could not be more disappointed in the team and where it has gone and is going. Much of the blame, I agree, should start at the top with the ownership and front office. The players, too, I emphasize are not blameless. The Red Sox's problems are so deep that they would take many years to fix. I am unsure whether the Fenway Sports Group can turn it around and maintain the support of the fans. For me, the season was a mix of apathy, disgust, bewilderment, and mostly disappointment.

Finally, the high court resumed its term this past week and the cases thus far promise to make this term as interesting as the last. For those who keep track of cases based on ideology, last term's main cases did not turn out to be as conservative as the court's reputation is - mainly helped by Chief Justice Roberts's U-turn in the health care case. We'll see about this term, in which Justice Kennedy will continue to play his role as a swing vote. I will definitely be paying attention to the headline affirmative action case of Fisher v. University of Austin, as well as others to follow, especially if the Court takes up DOMA or Proposition 8.

Obama's Houdini Month

Who would have thought? After declaring a "shellacking" in the November election, Obama has resurrected his political hopes and his party's momentum in a whirlwind two weeks. I have not seen such a swift turn of fortunes since the Red Sox's recovery against the Yankees and the 19-8 "shellacking" in 2004. But somehow Obama defied the odds and critics who labelled him soft and incapable of pushing through key legislation. He did it the old-fashioned way: using personal will and political compromise. Adopting some of Clinton's tactics, Obama has thrown the gauntlet to the Republicans and revitalized support among the liberals and Democrat base.

I think the three major pieces of legislation are all wise and practical. First, extending  the Bush tax cuts, despite liberals' cries against cuts for the wealthy, will help to keep money in consumers' pockets and foster investment and consumer spending in 2011. The net gains from the tax cuts for the middle class, unemployment benefits and reduced payroll tax makes this a desirable compromise. Second, Obama rallied his liberal and youth base by fulfilling his campaign promise to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. Let's hope this makes the beginning of extending equal protection to gays and other still-marginalized groups. Finally, the START treaty ratification is a huge foreign policy success and instrumental to promoting nuclear peace and better relations with Russia. Biden and Kerry were instrumental in passing the treaty, which leaves America in a better position to tackle problems such as Iran and North Korea in the upcoming year.

Obama is not out of the woods yet. He and the incoming Congress will have many challenges in the upcoming term, most notably appropriations and the budget/deficit and other measures to stimulate the economy and job growth. How well the economy fares in 2012 will determine whether Obama wins reelection. But his December success has paved the way for that possibility and raised the spirits of his supporters and independents alike.

How much will the Democrats lose?

The Democrats will lose a lot this November 2. The only question is how much. The mood of the nation is difficult to gauge, but an anti-incumbent and anti-government wave is prevalent. The Democrats have much going against them: their incumbency, Obama, the job market, and their "elitism". Even though Obama has embarked on a final tour to boost his party's chances, it will be futile. Many Democrats, in fact, have isolated themselves from Obama so that they could retain their seats. For the GOP, this year is a vital opportunity that they have not had since 1994.

Even so, I cannot predict a clear Republican triumph. The Tea Party is a major liability for them. In the glare of the national media, many Tea Party candidates wilted and raised questions about their suitability for office. Business, which likes predictability, is wary of the Tea Party, as are most independents. The Tea Party may turn out to bite Republicans, and boost Democrat counterparts who only offer one thing to voters: they are not the Tea Party. Furthermore, many incumbent Republicans are up for office in national and state elections, and they too feel so voter ire. The Republicans should not feel so buoyant yet.

Perhaps the election will come down to the oldest calculus, money. Thanks to our ever judicious Supreme Court, whichever side spends the most or has the most corporate benefactors will win. The tasks facing America are great but the politicians who will solve them are petty. What would Ben Franklin really say?

Finally, progress on the BP Oil Spill

Today, in almost a stunning turn of events, the Gulf oil spill saga has generated some good news. Foremost, BP has agreed to set up a $20 billion escrow account to pay off potential claims arising from the spill. That agreement brought immediate and much-needed relief for Gulf Coast residents and businesses. Although $20 billion is not that much for BP - its annual dividends are just half of that - Obama has obtained good terms for the escrow account: administration by an independent third party, collateral of BP's American assets and the remaining understanding that no minimum exists for BP's liability. Furthermore, BP has suspended dividends to its shareholders for the year, and has also set aside a $100 million fund for displaced and waylaid oil workers impacted by the President's oil drilling moratorium. That latter claim was likely difficult to bargain and win, as BP had little influence in that effect.

I think that today's turn of events constitutes a big success for Obama. After last night's Oval Office speech, which I thought was only mediocre and not forceful enough, today's negotiations delivered substantial results. The American people are disappointed with Obama and the federal government's handling of the BP crisis not because regulators overlooked the problems or could not stop the spill, but because the government appeared incapable of doing anything about it or extracting some tangible promises from BP. Ordinary people in general do not, and cannot, concern themselves with far away dealings of an overseas oil company or the technical details of an oil spill. Instead, they look at their bottom line and how their lives are impacted. Obama appeared aloof and incapable of helping them with their lost livelihoods. Today may be the beginning of a new perception.

Why financial regulation reform is needed, but won't happen

Debate will finally begin on the Senate floor on financial regulation reform. It's about time. The market crash in 2008 showed all of us, lay and professional alike, the weaknesses of the existing financial system and need for reform. True, some regulations have since been adopted, or strengthened. But a more extensive overhaul is necessary in order to address enormous issues with bailouts, corporate loopholes and banking regulations. The current inquest into Goldman Sachs is a mere remedy for past wrongs, but proves nothing to prevent similar excesses in the future. I believe that Republicans have some solutions that can work, even within a package of Democratic proposals. It's about time the Republican senators ended their defiance and at least allow debate to begin.

Nonetheless, I do not see passage of a major bill in the near future. Financial regulations overhaul is a tricky endeavor. The last time a bold bill passed was amid the Great Depression. Nowadays, with signs of a tentative recovery already in place, there will be more reluctance to take drastic measures. Additionally, big companies lobbyists still hold tremendous power in Washington. Rather than being ridiculed for their faults and errors, they are relied upon to get America back on track (somewhat true, although small businesses are the key). I believe they will be able to twist arms and sweat out enough politicians to get a bill to their liking. Unfortunately, it will be weak and not much of financial overhaul at all.

One last pull for health care reform

Tomorrow's bipartisan summit with Obama and leaders of Congress may well be the last chance for health care reform. Obama will unveil his health care plan, and the Congressional leaders will have the opportunity to voice their issues and concerns. Tomorrow is conducive to spurring the legislation in Congress because of the following: 1) the president is getting personally involved; 2) major leaders of Congress, not whole quorums, are present; and 3) the public will be watching. First, Obama should take a more active role in pushing for health care reform. Thus far, his hands-off, pragmatic approach has failed, and Congress needs someone to spur them to action. Second, dealing with leaders gives the president leeway and means to influence. He will not work directly with legislators who are at best indifferent, at worst worried more about their midterm elections. Third, the public finally can watch the health care debate live and in person. Knowing that their constituents and the American people are interpreting their every word gives the group members more incentives to not sit on the fence. Let's hope for meaningful accomplishments and results from tomorrow's meeting that will put health care back on the agenda.

State of Union address 2010

Tonight, Barack Obama will address both chambers of Congress and more important, the American people. He hopes to revive the fortunes of his presidency and his party, and to assure Americans of the government's commitment to their livelihood. I will be listening to him with a critical ear. For Obama, the following elements will be important for his address, and the ones that I will focus on:

1) The economy: Obama needs to stay focused on this one issue. Most Americans are worried about their jobs, homes and finances. Even the employed and moderately wealthy are worried. They want assurance from the president about their economic security and futures, above all else. The economy is a complicated subject, but it is still the most vital.

2) Fewer issues: Obama should avoid the many issues that face his administration, including health care reform, Afghanistan, climate change, immigration. Touching them will only highlight the deficiencies. Liberals will wonder why he hasn't been moving on them; conservatives will wonder why they are being addressed.

3) Moving centre: The nation is shifting right. Obama will likely need to move centre in his politics, and re-engage with the Republicans. Tonight, we can see how much ground he is willing to give. Members of his own party and liberals will also be watching closely.

4) Keeping it simple: More important than ever, keeping the address short and simple benefits Obama and the audience. I understand the topics are complicated, and message several, but the address needs to stay succinct and intelligible for the non-political junkie.

5) Rapport with the citizens: A major criticism of Obama is that he has lost touch with ordinary Americans. Tonight, on national television, he will have the opportunity. He needs to commiserate with our worries and hopes, and show himself as a "common man". Rebuilding trust with the people is the first step, regardless of how ambitious he wants his next three years.

I'll be back after 10 with brief thoughts on the speech...

*Updated: overall, the address was forceful and engaging. Obama focused on jobs and the economy, and he reached across the aisle and to ordinary people. I liked his use of humour and sarcasm, and his pointed remarks toward large corporations and recalcitrant lobbyists. Nonetheless, some of his language was too confrontational. His criticism of the Supreme Court was unwarranted (the Judiciary interprets the law, however unfairly, not the Executive). Finally, his efforts to tie to ordinary Americans seemed scattered and insufficient. Most of the issues and criticisms he discussed focused within the government - which it should - but difficult to relate to those without a political science or economics degree.

Mass. upset more dire than it seems

For the Democratic Party, Scott Brown's stunning Senate win in Massachusetts was more than a setback; it was a debacle. For a long time, I believed that the Democrats were still strong politically, and the November elections last year were aberrations more due to the state of the nation rather than the party's malaise. Now, I stand corrected. First, Massachusetts is one of the most liberal states in the nation. It has been solidly - I emphasize solidly - Democratic for decades. For so many districts to vote Republican was a telling shift in the political climate. Second, the state of Massachusetts is less dire than many other places. The economy, for which many blame Obama, is rather healthy; health care reform remains popular among the residents. For so many to vote Republican underscores other tensions that have motivated the people. Third, Brown's late and unexpected surge was atypical. Coakley, a reliable and respected attorney general, lost to a dark horse, and Massachusetts hasn't been known to vote for dark horses, especially conservative ones. Indeed, his late surge characterized how quickly and decisively the mood turned against the Democrats. Fourth, Obama's late show of support for Coakley hardly mattered. That just underlined how little appeal and support Obama enjoys in Massachusetts, indeed the nation.

Is this the end for health care reform? It may well be so, especially in the Senate. While Brown may be new and lacks experience, he can throw his weight behind united Republican opposition, and thus kill any bill. I believe that health care reform is a part of the Democrats' defeat. Massachusetts' voters aren't against health care reform - they disapprove of how it is handled. For many liberals, they see Obama and the Democrats too willing to compromise. Anybody who fails to stand by hard principles will lose respect, from both supporters and opponents. On the other hand, many conservatives think Obama and health care reform is too partisan. They did not work with Republicans on the important issues, and more so, the bill threatened states' innovations, including Massachusetts's. Thus, what led to defeat was dual disillusionment from both sides: conservatives who found Obama and the Democrats too unwilling to compromise on important issues, and liberals who found them too willing. While trying to satisfy both, Obama and the Democrats achieved neither.

Democrat retirements may be an opportunity

Recent statements by two Democrat senators, Chris Dodd of CT and Byron Dorgan of ND, to abandon reelection bids have raised worries about the state of the Democratic Party. Many feel that the state of the nation, along with traditional White House-governing party's setback in midterm elections, will imperil many of the Democrat bills, including health care and climate change. I want to cast doubt on those predictions. First, Dodd, for one, is highly unpopular in Connecticut; thus, another challenger, such as the incumbent Attorney General, will be a better choice for the party. Dorgan and North Dakota represent the more difficult situation. Second, Republicans, too, are facing candidates retiring or abandoning reelection. I think the current climate and dissatisfaction among voters will affect Democrat and Republican incumbents alike. Third, and perhaps least latent, the Democrat retirements present an opportunity and impetus for the party to pass and enact legislation, including health care. The state of the party, with impending losses in Congress in the November elections, should spur current legislators, including retiring incumbent, and President Obama to pass a health care bill quickly. The uncertain political climate may favor the strong executive driving legislation through Congress and a lame duck Congress pressing to leave a legacy.

Obama's speech leaves ample questions

I just finished watching Obama's speech, which overall was thorough, insightful and eloquent. He outlined his Afghanistan strategy and took responsibility for sending 30,000 additional troops in 2010 and 2011. I also liked how he tied Afghanistan to his overarching foreign policy. Nonetheless, his strategy raised several questions. First, Obama failed to address convincingly why an alternative strategy involving zero additional troops is not viable. Many critics have faulted current strategy, tactics and approaches and believe that the U.S. needs to deploy them better rather than send in more troops. Second, I am unsure whether Obama's strategy will pressure Karzai and Pakistan to be more accountable and involved in the war. If his timetable and emphasis on Pakistan are meant to send a message to those governments, how much would those leaders heed Obama? Third, the timetable is unrealistic. Sending in additional troops in 2010 and planning a withdrawal as early as mid-2011 is ambitious. Given the complexity of the situation and Obama's goals - counterinsurgency is a task of years, not months - a more flexible and far-off timetable would be better. Fourth, Obama failed to detail what he expects out of other allies, such as NATO members. Many of those governments face increased domestic pressure for withdrawing troops, and Obama should have given them some acknowledgment and outline for their continued role and need. Fifth and finally, he blurred military and political objectives without delineating the extent and limits of U.S. involvement. For example, he alluded to American involvement in Afghanistan's agricultural production - including, I presume illicit drugs - but in what capacity, military, economic or political? While a counterinsurgency strategy should emphasize nation-building, promising too much is desultory.

Assessing the Elections

How should we interpret yesterday's election results? I consider three issues most important: 1) Do the results constitute a mandate against President Obama? 2) Do the results signify a Republican resurgence on the national level? 3) What do the results suggest about the American people's outlook on the economy?

First, Obama should not be discouraged about the election results. The Democrat incumbents in Virginia and New Jersey lost more so because of their personal incompetence and unpopularity. Jon Corzine would have lost regardless of how much Obama tried to support him. Additionally, most voters cited the economy as the main issue, which is only loosely tied to Obama's performance or their view thereof. I still think a majority of Americans support and believe in Obama achieving some progress.

Second, the Republicans are indeed regaining a national foothold. Their swaying of independents who had aligned with Obama in 2008 showed that the Republican Party still can attract a diverse constituency. Furthermore, their (and the conservatives') victory in the Maine gay marriage law referendum suggests that they can penetrate traditional Democrat strongholds and win the values politics game.

Third, one cannot conclude anything about the American people's outlook on the economy. Statistically, the voters who cited the economy as the most important issue did so out of choice, and the election results are a small sample size. What is undeniable is that the economy will most likely continue to be the primary issue in the 2010 and 2012 general elections. Whichever party can build a strong record and platform on the economy will be at an advantage.

White House warming to Russia with missile shield stance

The recent White House decision to scrap missile shield plans in Poland and the Czech Republic reflects a realization of the imminent troubles Iran and North Korea will bring. Both countries have shown belligerent intentions including renewed pursuit of nuclear weapons. For Washington to achieve leverage and success in diplomacy with those countries, it needs to cater to Russia. Therefore, the White House took a step back on a relatively unimportant theatre - missile defence over Europe - in order to take a step forward on relations with Russia, whose support will be crucial in any future bargaining with Iran and North Korea. It is well-known that relations between Moscow and Washington have been lukewarm, with the missile shield over Europe a particular cause for disagreement. But other geopolitical concerns are more important now, notably Iran and North Korea, which makes the missile shield concession a relatively cheap price to pay. Republicans have criticized this move, and claim that the missile shield and containment of Iran are connected, but it is implausible that Iran would concern itself with far-away Europe or even have the capacity to launch a long-range weapon in the near future. Overall, the move by the White House carries much potential for its increasing its bargaining and geopolitical position with an important ally, and in a far more important theatre of concern.

Obama gives strong appeal for health reform

I just listened to President Obama's national address, and he impressed me much (ok, it's a tie now between him and Roger Federer's tennis). Obama successfully balanced a line between reason and emotion - reasoned argument for his plan with emotional appeals to Ted Kennedy and American history. He was comprehensive in outlining the key points of his plan and addressing the main controversies, although I thought he could have given a more detailed and less rhetorical response to some of the main criticisms, esp. regarding the public option. Overall, I thought the speech was very clear and comprehensible for the average viewer on TV, which is very important. The response from Congress was obviously mixed but Obama did well to acknowledge and reach out to key Republicans. I believe he has built a good foundation with tonight's speech and it will now depend on Congress and members of public, including us, to push health care reform to fruition.