Ask Wednesday: Jonathan Price on the presidential election

Jonathan Price, a retired college Professor of English, has been a lifelong Democrat who does not claim any particular political expertise.
    But he does understand the legend that Stendhal postponed his death to find out the results of a French election. Elections are exciting.
    He has also been a friend of our editor in chief for 49 years. [Our questions are in italics.]

What difference does it make who wins the election?

    It makes a great deal of difference who wins the election in terms of values, suffering, the direction our country is going, and many other factors.
    I suppose the most important factor is jobs and economic welfare. I assume Obama would continue what he’s been doing and, if re-elected, retreat from the fiscal cliff and offer some more stimulus—if needed—to revive an economy that is still recovering or a bit moribund. I already see many signs of recovery, both in the newspaper and in my personal experience. Cars are being sold in ever increasing numbers, especially since the average American car on the road is ten years old. These increasing car sales will stimulate the recovery. This has been good for GM, good for Chrysler, good for Ford, and even good for Toyota (many of which are made in the U.S., and the sales of which still give jobs to many Americans).
    Housing is beginning to recover too. It’s almost embarrassing, for a Californian at least, to recognize how cheaply a house can be bought, some for as little at $100,000, some new ones for $150,000. This would not have been possible five or ten years ago; most of our adult children could not have afforded to purchase homes in California. They can now. Mortgage rates are at lifetime lows, and housing prices are affordable, but are starting to recover (that is, appreciate). Builders around us are renewing work on subdivisions. There are two key signs of activity that is multiplied in the American economy: household formation and consumer purchases. And these are both improving. I expect these trends to continue, and I believe the Obama administration deserves credit for them. Much has improved since the dire state of the economy three and a half years ago.
    A Romney administration, from what I understand, doesn’t believe much in intervening in the economy and would start by cutting taxes on the very rich. I’m not very rich, so this has little appeal for me. I doubt it would stimulate the economy very much. The gap in America between the rich and the poor, or even the rich and the middle class, has widened to the greatest point since the late 1920s; this is an ominous sign. I doubt it would be good for our country to widen this gap even more.
    Obama and the Democrats support subsidies for higher education, student loans, a broad medical care plan, and Social Security—though they are certainly willing to adjust these to make them sustainable. The Republicans want to radically reduce Social Security (turn some of it into private accounts if they can) and voucherize Medicare; they want to reduce underwriting of college student loans. From my point of view, these would only cost the average American more over time; eventually the vouchers would pay less and less a share of medical costs, and individuals would have to pay more and more to purchase the rest of their insurance. I suspect most Americans wouldn’t appreciate getting a call from their aging parents who needed to move in because Social Security had been reduced or because senior costs for drugs and typical medical expenses (which, duh, increase with old age) had become exorbitant.
    The Republicans seem to think that private medical insurance would be a self-regulating economic system that would ensure good medicine and affordable plans—that insurance companies would compete for the insurance dollar and provide Americans with a variety of desirable health plans, that they have somehow failed to do up to this point, especially for those whose employers don’t cover the balance of health care costs. Republicans’ faith in the market seems to me a kind of mass delusion. If twelve other industrialized nations have some form of universal health care that costs significantly less than ours, and still have better longevity statistics, I would think we could do as well or better with some kind of government plan, of which the Affordable Care Act is certainly a beginning. For example, Japan’s health care costs 1/3 of ours, Norway and Switzerland 2/3. Norway’s results in certain health categories are better than ours. If six other countries had auto industries that produced cars with 70 mpg costing $7,000 and going 0-60 in 5 seconds, we’d certainly look into it. It baffles me that we don’t feel the same way about national health care.
    I also think Obama is perceptive, thoughtful, and pragmatic, and gets good advice. I don’t think he just comes up with an automatic or even a partisan answer; I believe he looks into key issues, studies the evidence, discusses it with advisers, and reaches a conclusion. To me, this means that though we can’t always predict what he’ll do or that he’ll succeed, we can rely on him to seek out experts and listen and explore matters thoughtfully.
    Romney is obviously bright and thoughtful, and has sought good advice, but within a pretty limited spectrum. Unfortunately, his economic solutions, for example, seem guided by programmatic, ideological faith in the market. Paul Ryan as running mate, with his admiration for Ayn Rand, merely underlines the limits of Romney’s vision.(The last public office-holding admirer of Ayn Rand whom I remember was Alan Greenspan. He thought that the magic of the market would prevent subprime mortgages form turning sour and was very surprised when they created the greatest fiscal crisis of the last 50 years.) So it’s hard to know whether we can trust him to go beyond the demands of Tea Partiers or to think outside the box of outdated and narrow economic theory.
    It’s likely that Romney wouldn’t be as narrow or as foolish as some of the positions he’s recently taken in order to cater to the Republican right—that he wouldn’t insist on self-deportation, that he might not do anything to fool with a woman’s right to choose, that he might be more accommodating on health care or Social Security than his party’s platform suggests. But why would we want to take the chance with someone who is so adept at altering positions for the purpose of catering—not to the entire electorate, but to slivers of it he needs temporarily?
    Undoubtedly a Romney administration would be very sympathetic to all sorts of businesses and manufacturers that are annoyed by what they consider a surfeit of regulations. We would have more pollution, lower mpg standards for autos, less oversight of groups that probably need increased oversight. The fallout from these policies of deregulation (or the lack thereof) might not be felt immediately. But it seems to me that banks and insurance companies and employers and universities and many others could use more oversight.

What do you think are the key issues (or problems) facing Americans in the next four years?
    The key issues now are the economy (aka “jobs”) and Iran). But it’s not always easy to predict what will be important in one or two or three years. Obama’s 2008 campaign wasn’t about his ability as a manager of the economy, but he got stuck with it, and it has been the key issue of his administration, other than health care. I suspect that Iran and its possible nuclear weapon will continue to be a key issue, but it seems to me that Iran’s bullying methods and obnoxious foreign policy are the real issue. Without Hezbollah or Hamas, Iran would be a problem mainly for its own people, who seem to have tired somewhat of the Islamic revolution, which is essentially undemocratic.
    What does this have to do with us? I think the U.S. should pay attention, continue the multiple embargoes, offer to talk, offer compromise. And not go to war. Our wars lately (since 1945) haven’t been very fruitful. Since there are clearly so many other countries, in varying degrees of threat or obnoxious behavior, that have nuclear weapons that we have somehow done little to obliterate or prevent them from acquiring, why should we worry so intensely about Iran, rather than other countries, like North Korea, Pakistan, China, France, Israel, and so on? It seems to me that both Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Stockman also acquiesce in Iran’s nuclearization.
    On the other hand, we clearly ought to be involved and engaged in other issues in the mideast, including the future direction/government of Syria, Egypt, Turkey, and so forth. I think it’s also time for a serious effort to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (all the previous efforts have been serious, and I had high hopes for George Mitchell, given his success in Ireland, but his mission too seems to have ended in failure). The current Israeli administration shows no signs of wishing to pursue serious negotiations, nor to significantly curtail settlements. But administrations change. I suspect the majority of Israelis and Palestinians actually can imagine a peace that would yield immensely better lives for all of them. It seems to me that Gaza (that helpless few square miles of economic dysfunction and errant rocketry), given that it’s on the Mediterranean, could easily become a very calming international resort and a center of Information Technology.

Any other key issues?
    Another issue that has gotten only tangential attention so far in the campaign is the cost of higher education. Most Americans regard the availability of higher education as a key to the American dream and upward mobility. It’s no surprise that the four presidential/vice presidential candidates all went to college, and none served in the military. Two of them went to Harvard graduate schools. To go to Harvard as an undergraduate for four years now costs $217,984. Some might say that Harvard is the very best and costs the most, like Lexus or Mercedes. But most private colleges have prices in that same range. So if your two children are within three years of each other (a typical American birth spread), and you want to send both of them to Harvard or a private school, you should think of laying away $436, 000 or so. Who can afford that? Well, Mitt Romney obviously; and if you’re a doctor married to a lawyer with a successful practice, yes. But what about the rest of us? Yes, there are scholarships and loans, but the sticker price is so far beyond even the financial calculation of the average American family, with a median income of about $52,000.
    Suppose your two kids only want to go to a state university and not Harvard? Then it’s only $17,000 per year, so for two kids for four years it’s $136,000. That ‘s still a princely sum, up 8% last year. In some states, such as California, increases were 100% over some recent 4-year periods. Unfortunately most states, where help might be expected, have only “solved” the problem by raising tuition and fees or deciding to seek more out-of-state applicants, who have to pay more. Since college education is a typical cost of American life, and virtually no one can afford it, a good government would seek ideas to rationalize the process or subsidize the costs. The current method is to saddle students (or their parents) with lifelong loans, some for as much as $100,000, a new form of indentured servitude, which many came to America to escape. To expand outward from the costs and challenges of higher education, it would be nice for an American government to agree on a middle class bill of rights including, perhaps, some of the following:
    A. Those who get educated, raise families, and contribute, will be able to afford reasonable health care for themselves and their families.
    B. Two-worker families, over time, will be able to send their children to an institution of higher education without experiencing severe lifelong debt.
    C. In institutions not completely owned by a single party, a small coterie of decision-makers will not be able to set costs and pay themselves salaries far out of line with historical norms and with the general patterns of those who work alongside them.

Other key issues?
    As mentioned above, in response to the first question, we still need to find strategies to reduce the expenses or payment strategies for Social Security and Medicare. I actually don’t think this is so hard, if the two parties could compromise. The last “fix” in Social Security increased taxing of the benefits, eliminated some beneficiaries, delayed the onset of payments, and increased the taxes modestly. That seems like a good beginning for a new 30- or 40-year solution, one for which aging Americans, workers, and employers might all pay or suffer something in costs.
    And, undoubtedly, we need to confront global warming and therefore our consumption of carbons, and the use of cars.

Where would you like to see the government take the country?
    In a way I think I’ve answered this already, but briefly: restore the economy, allow people to afford housing and education, make medical care not life-threatening either financially or physically, and protect us from foreign malefactors, but gently.

Have you worked in either campaign? Doing what?
    Not yet. In 2008 I worked in a phone bank for the Obama campaign. I attended a dinner this year for Ami Bera, a Democratic challenger for the House in California.

What problems do you think are caused by the huge "special interest" donations to campaigns?
    There are several problems. The most significant seems to be that those with large fortunes, an inflated sense of their own importance, and little restraint can have an undue influence on the election. The idea of “one person, one vote” seems perhaps a guideline here—that no one’s fiscal influence should so outweigh that person’s numerical share of the population. Some 40 years ago, there was the doctrine of “equal time”on broadcast media—the time given one party or one position had to be granted to the other contestants. Perhaps we could revive this idea for campaign advertising that appears on TV.
    Having said all this, despite the fact that Obama is being dramatically outspent by Superpacs, the election doesn’t seem to be significantly swayed by this imbalance.
    Nevertheless the question does raise the intriguing issue of the role in our society of those with extraordinary wealth. The constitution suggests they have the same rights as others. To think, to speak their minds, to be treated fairly. And surely there are some outstanding individuals among this group. Nevertheless great wealth also seems, to me, to lead various figures to behavior and thinking that the rest of us would call arrogant if we weren’t so in awe of their wealth or position. I suspect this was the motivation behind Arnold Schwarzenegger’s six years as governor of California, despite the fact that he hadn’t voted in many previous elections. A would-be Schwarzenegger, Meg Whitman, devoted $150 million of her fortune to losing a race for governor to a man, Jerry Brown, with a great deal of experience who spent a fraction of what she did. Incidentally, Meg Whitman couldn’t remember when or what party she had registered under previously, and had not voted in most California elections. She was an astoundingly unprepared candidate. There have of course been a number of Americans who were wealthy and were astute, thoughtful, or successful politicians—figures such as the Kennedys (the ones who ran apparently spent little time actually accruing a fortune), Michael Bloomberg, and—rewarded for his modesty and directness—Warren Buffett.
    So the topic of money in politics is worth thinking about, but I’m not sure there is a clear or easy solution.

What do you think are the chances that Romney will be elected?
    I suppose a Martian or a mathematical observer might say that Romney has a 47/49% chance, but I rate his odds much lower because this time, the electoral college system has narrowed the focus to a few key states, in all of which Romney is behind. He’s been running in one way or another for almost a year and he’s beaten all his Republican opponents, and he’s been advertising in these states, so he ought to be doing better than that. But he’s not. I doubt that he’ll win. I don’t think he’s a very good candidate; he’s not nimble on his feet, in spontaneous reaction. He’s more remembered for his occasional embarrassing off-focus comments than for brilliant or compelling statements of his position. In a recent program of Charlie Rose, four pundits of varying political persuasions all seemed to have grave doubts that Romney could win or would make the necessary adjustments to achieve victory—this was just two weeks ago.
    To sympathize with his dilemma briefly, it’s very hard to unseat a sitting Democratic president. The only time that happened was Jimmy Carter, in 1980, and Ronald Reagan was a far more appealing candidate than Romney is (albeit superficial, in my opinion). Of course, unseating in the other direction has happened a number of times, as in Clinton of President George H.W. Bush, and Carter of Ford (though that is usually asterisked because Ford was never elected). The political experts cite time and again all those markers of presidential re-election success (low unemployment rate, approval rating, voters’ attitude that the country is going in the wrong direction), yet they can’t bring themselves to be convinced that Romney has a chance. I suspect he simply doesn’t. If I have to put my finger on why, I’d say it’s because he’s not likable (or to rephrase Obama on Hillary, not likable enough)—unlike his two most noteworthy Republican predecessors who became President, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

If Romney were elected, how good or bad would that be?
    Romney would probably be a bit better than he seems now to most Democrats because he might moderate his positions, and he seems not to have been a terrible governor in Massachusetts. On the other hand he does seem over-impressed by very out-of-date ideas about capitalism (let the market make all the decisions; if this were true, why don’t we elect Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand as president?). He and his party seem oddly irrational in their pursuit of restraints on women’s sexuality (whether it be their access to contraception or the legality of abortions), and this seems a distinct step backward. His comments about college financing (students should just ask their parents or go to a cheaper college) seem both insensitive and stupid. The prospective Romney-Ryan budget would reduce all sorts of subsidies for student loans, poor people on Medicaid, food stamps, and many other useful government programs.
    It’s just possible that Romney has some innovative ideas that would encourage great industries to flourish though he has to date not been at all specific about them, other than the standard Republican mantra, “lower taxes,” the likely effect of which at this point is to increase the deficit that has suddenly become one of their campaign issues (after they were indifferent to its dramatic growth under Reagan and George W. Bush).

If Obama wins a second term, how do you think he would change his approach from the previous four years?
    Obama would need to come up with new issues and new topics (beyond government health care and getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan). I’m sure he would. To escape the fiscal cliff he’d need to negotiate with Republicans; I’m sure he’d compromise, but I suspect he’d also be tougher and try to use the press and television to suggest ways in which Republicans could suffer if their intransigence became absolute. I.e., he’d still try to be bipartisan but I suspect he’d be more demanding, more engaged, more persuasive, and more driven to explain his positions to the American people. He’d also probably appoint one or two more justices and perhaps change the conservative direction of the Court.
    He’s been faulted for his lack of specificity by David Brooks (who couldn’t find anyone at the Democratic convention to mention a prospective piece of legislation the second Obama administration would pass), but I suspect this is a common failing for re-election engineering. I think Clinton’s second-term mantra was to “build a bridge to the twenty-first century,” which was actually pretty meaningless; and he still had a fairly good second term, escaping conviction on impeachment and emerging with a highly favorable rating by the voters, not to mention a budget surplus and no enervating wars.

Is the lack of bipartisan political solutions a problem for whoever is the next president?
    Yes, but perhaps an attempt to resurrect and enact Simpson-Bowles might be a good start at bipartisanism—lowered tax rates with increased revenues, a reformed tax system (that reduces or omits interest and other deductions).

What question (or questions) would you like to answer that we didn't ask?

What about Clint Eastwood?
    I doubt such a question is necessary, but Eastwood’s performance at the Republican convention was at best silly, at worst insulting. And yet ultimately meaningless politically, because I doubt anyone will change their vote because of what he said. He’s not the first political figure who’s tried to debate an empty chair, though his characterization of Obama’s responses was either inane or profane. He kept referring to him as Mr. Obama, though the majority of the country calls him “Mr. President.” He complained Obama was a lawyer but, duh, so is Romney (same law school), so was Clinton, Nixon, and each Kennedy. In the end, his performance, to me, seemed a caricature of some of the more simplistic and knee-jerk politics of characters he’s played, such as Dirty Harry—nevertheless a great character. Eastwood has also made some excellent movies, such as Unforgiven. But some of his best were those in which his outsized character was reworked and parodied, such as Every Which Way but Loose. Given the embarrassment caused by his appearance, I was surprised (not really) not to see Morgan Freeman, a good friend of Eastwood’s and probably a superior actor, performing at the Democratic convention.
_______________
Copyright © 2012 by Jonathan Price