Since I first saw the preview a few weeks ago, I’ve been dying to see The Campaign.  Not only am I a fan of political comedies, but I love anything with Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis.  Any movie combining these two actors and this genre simply couldn’t fail.  Unsurprisingly, the movie exceeded my expectations.  Ferrell and Galifianakis were brilliant as rival candidates for a Congressional seat in North Carolina.  They both mastered their unique characters and made a ridiculous story seem at least somewhat plausible.

The story centers around Cam Brady (Ferrell), an incumbent Congressman, and his upstart challenger, Marty Huggins (Galifianakis).  Wealthy industrialists (who bear a striking similarity to the Koch Brothers) try to mold the race, which contributes to an increasingly ridiculous campaign.

It goes without saying that The Campaign is not a realistic story; it is a comedy, and should be viewed as such.  Under the surface, though, there is a message about the ridiculous state of affairs in American politics.  When wealthy interests are the dominant forces in elections and ad hominem attacks are more effective than reasonable critiques of policy, the door is open to such satire.

Take, for instance, the recent controversy over this ad by Mitt Romney:

First off, there’s the fact that the ad is blatantly dishonest.  Obama did not eliminate welfare to work requirements; rather, as factcheck.org points out, he gave states some flexibility to define welfare-to-work requirements.  Sadly, such blatant distortions have become par for the course in political advertisements.  There is very little accountability for such attacks, and that opens them up to all kinds of dishonest tactics.  Even looking beyond the incorrect information in this ad, you see old clips of Obama taken out of context and the Heritage Foundation cited in one of the attacks.  While these may not be as “dishonest” as the welfare attack, they unfairly distort the image of his opponent and pass off information from one of the most biased think tanks in the country as factual.

Mitt Romney is not the only politician guilty of taking this approach.  Actually, he’s part of a pretty strong majority.  That’s where Cam Brady and Marty Huggins come in; while Romney and Obama aren’t nearly as ridiculous as they are, the win-at-all-costs approach they took in the movie is similar to the approach candidates are taking in real elections.  The loss of civility and willingness to do anything to win is an alarming development.

Satire, while humorous, is capable of levying some of the strongest criticism of current affairs.  Just like The Colbert Report brings awareness to flaws in the media by spoofing their approach to the news, The Campaign uses humor to bring up a number of issues with our electoral process.  I have no illusions about this movie changing the way we conduct elections, but I hope it at least makes people see the way real campaigns sometimes mirror this fictional camapign.  We haven’t reached the level of Brady vs. Huggins yet, but we could be headed down that road.

I’ve always had an interest in security issues.  Not enough to make that my focus in school (because, seriously, is anything more interesting than international law?), but enough to make such issues grab my attention and hold it for some time.  This has likely contributed to my ongoing interest in the situation in Syria.  A few days ago I wrote about the issues Syria and the international community will face after the fall of President Assad.  It is largely overlooked, but it is one of the most serious challenges facing the international community in relation to Syria.  As I argued, instability there could not only cause seriously problems for its citizens, but destabilize an already volatile region.

What about the challenges the world faces while Assad retains control?  It goes without saying that most of this will fall on the people of Syria.  With fighting raging in many parts of the country, few people there are able to escape the challenges of this growing civil war.  There is discussion, though, about what other states should be doing to mitigate this conflict.

The notion of international involvement emerged again this week, with former French President Nicholas Sarkozy calling for intervention in the Syrian conflict.  This echoed Senator John McCain calls for airstrikes earlier this year.  McCain and Sarkozy are part of a vocal but small minority on the international level.  While their case is bolstered by the success of airstrikes and a no-fly zone in Libya, McCain and Sarkozy’s governments have shown no willingness to use military force to quell the fighting.

Intervention is an intriguing option.  After all, it worked well in Libya despite a great deal of skepticism.  Many feared the creation of a third major conflict in the Middle East, with the United States sacrificing lives and resources in a prolonged engagement.  Ultimately, though, they toppled Gaddafi quickly and prevented a humanitarian crisis.  What began as a risky endeavor became one of the biggest foreign policy successes of the Obama administration.

Sadly, though, Syria is not Libya.  Not only did Gaddafi’s military have outdated equipment, but they were severely weakened without air power.  By quickly dismantling their air defense system and taking out their air force they took away the army’s biggest strength, and set the stage for the rebels to march from their stronghold in Benghazi to take down the regime in Tripoli.  The obvious benefits of taking out the government’s air power and the clear geographic distinctions made military intervention a wise gamble.  In Syria, though, much of the fighting is taking place in cities.  Where Gaddafi was using his air force to either attack civilian targets or take out rebel groups advancing through the desert, fighting against Assad has largely taken place on the streets of Syria’s major cities.  Taking out Syrian air power would do very little to limit such fighting.

In addition to the limited benefits of military intervention, many have questioned the impact this would have on regional stability.  A recent article by James Zogby in The National (a newspaper based in the UAE) indicates a number of other issues.  He discusses the strength of Assad’s military relative to Gaddafi’s, but also looks at issues of regional stability, including the possibility of outside intervention stoking a sectarian conflict.

If outside intervention could hasten the fall of Assad and end the bloodshed in Syria I’d be completely on board with it.  Sadly, though, the costs would vastly outweigh the benefits.  As I argued in my last post, regional instability and sectarian conflict need to be avoided at all costs.  Any international plan needs to be focused not just on the fall of Assad, but the delicate situation that emerges after.  Humanitarian assistance, a close alliance with the rebel leaders, and a concrete transition plan are the most important things the international community should be doing at the moment.

I wasn’t planning on posting anything today, but the somewhat surprising announcement of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s running mate inspired me to at least post my initial thoughts on it. I’ll have a lot to say in the coming days about Congressman Ryan and my thoughts on him as a candidate for national office, but for now, I’ll just look at its impact on the election.

My gut instinct when I saw this announcement was simple: Romney is scared. Obama has been very effective at defining him early on, and this has led to fairly consistent polling showing him behind both at the national level and in key swing states. His refusal to release his tax returns is becoming a bigger issue by the day, which fortifies the trend toward Obama.

Romney sees Ryan as a chance to move the focus of the race and counter Obama’s effective attacks . He hopes it will inspire his base and turn the race into a debate over their respective philosophies of government and economics. Ryan is well-known disciple of Ayn Rand and libertarian thinking, and Romney is now inextricably connected to such ideas. The race could turn into a debate between Rand and John Maynard Keynes, with people firmly taking sides in the debate over the size and scope of government.

It’s hard to say who this debate favors. On one hand, the “small government” argument is a fairly easy sell, as the 2010 mid-term election demonstrated. On the flip side, though, the Keynsian approach favored by Obama would pride itself on popular social programs like Medicare and Social Secury, which presents a serious problem for his opponents.

The problem for Romney, though, is that Ryan’s introduction to the race won’t make things so simple. Romney’s distinct weakness is his inability to “connect” with the middle class, and Ryan will have the same issues. His budget advocates cutting social programs and directing the savings toward tax cuts (mostly for those with higher incomes), and it will be difficult for Romney to distance himself from that. Obama will use this to double down on his attacks on Romney, continuing to draw contrasts between them.

I can’t think of a single Presidential race that has been decided by a strong VP selection. Candidates almost always see a polling boost after they select a running mate, but the excitement fades quickly, and the race is still decided by the person at the top of the ticket. This makes it wise to minimize the baggage you take on in such a pick. The Ryan selection deviates from that principle in a dramatic way. The Romney campaign is banking on him bolstering the campaign by energizing the base, raising money, and shifting the focus toward a debate over the size and scope of government. Once the dust settles, though, they’ll have given Obama one more line of attack. In addition to the already potent attacks on Bain Capital and Romney’s tax issues, he’ll have an extremely unpopular policy proposal to connect his opponent to. Obama has proven to be a savvy and tough campaigner, and I doubt he’ll let this opportunity get away.

A recurring theme in my posts (all five of them, so far) is my dislike of political ads.  I have my opinions, and candidates I support, but can I really fit the reasoning behind these into a 30 second clip?  Should I even try?  When politicians do this it “dumbs down” political discourse to an alarming level.

With this in mind, I was struck the other day by a slogan on a yard sign.  Kyle Albert, a (now defeated) candidate for the 106th district of the Missouri House, informed voters that he is “Pro-Life, Pro-Liberty, Pro-Constituion.”

Well, I’m glad we have that cleared up.

My immediate response: no shit?  Okay, I know Pro-Life has come to reflect an anti-abortion rights stance.  I dislike that term, as it infers someone is “anti-life” (if such a thing were really possible), but I’ll give him that one.  Alright, he’s against abortion rights.  But what about the other two?  Pro-Liberty?  Pro-Constitution?  Does that make his opponents Anti-Liberty and Anti-Constitution?   Because it sure infers that.  It makes elections into a choice between “American” and “Anti-American” ideas, with the right portraying itself as the noble defender of all things good and American, and the left seeking to tear down our political institutions and change our way of life.

Many of my friends on the left find this dichotomy amusing, and I confess to joking about my standing as an “America-hating leftist” from time to time.  Under the surface, though, there is danger in this.  Our political culture has become reliant on quick, easy pieces of information – political ads, cable news, and cheap slogans.  What happens when these cheap slogans infer that an opponent is Anti-American?  It begins to move elections away from issues and toward debates of patriotism that have dangerously nationalistic undertones.  That’s not to say we’re headed down the road to fascism; far from it.  What it does, though, is make elections into contests of who is more American, not who is more suited to hold public office.  Flag waving contests will not produce effective governments.

None of this is to say that a Republican primary for a seat in the Missouri House will create a domino effect that will damage the state of democracy around the country.  What it represents, though, is a dangerous trend that is being echoed by other, more powerful, Republican candidates.  Our elections already have a frustrating tendency to be decided on frivolous issues, and this would be another step down that road.  I hope people respond to such statements negatively and reject the candidates who espouse them.

Sadly, though, I’m not optimistic.

 

Voters in my home state of Missouri went to the polls on Tuesday to decide (among other things) the candidates for this fall’s U.S. Senate race.  On the Democratic side, the nomination of incumbent Claire McCaskill was a foregone conclusion.  While she is largely viewed as vulnerable, there was no serious challenge from within her party.  The Republican side was a different story.  Three candidates squared off for the chance to face McCaskill this November: businessman John Brunner, former State Treasurer Sarah Steelman, and Congressman Todd Akin.  Brunner was largely considered the favorite (thanks in no small part to the millions of dollars he gave to his own campaign), but Akin surprised most pundits and emerged victorious.

With control of the Senate largely up in the air, this race is sure to see a great deal of attention on the national level.  Republicans see it as a strong opportunity to gain a seat, while the Democrats hope to retain a foothold in an increasingly red state.  Money will soon begin to pour in, and both candidates will blanket the airwaves between now and November.  Each candidate brings some unique strength to the table in this matchup, and that is likely where the race will be decided.

McCaskill is no stranger to being the underdog in a statewide race.  In 2004, she unseated incumbent Governor Bob Holden in the Democratic primary, but ultimately lost to her Republican challenger, Matt Blunt.  She regrouped and entered the U.S. Senate race against incumbent Jim Talent in 2006.  Many saw Talent as the favorite, but McCaskill was able to ride a Democratic wave and take the seat.  She’s carved out a role as a decidedly moderate Democrat since arriving in Washington.  She is likely to play up the yearly National Journal ideology ranking which had her as the most moderate member of the Senate.  She’s a tenacious campaigner who will likely run a tough (and very negative) campaign to take her seat.

The elephant in the room with McCaskill is her close connection to President Obama.  It’s no secret that Obama is extremely unpopular in Missouri; while he’s polling well in all other “traditional” swing states, most see it as a safe state for Romney.  She was an early supporter when he began his run for President in 2008, and has been a reliable ally in the Senate.  Republicans will play this up, particularly in outstate Missouri.  The Obama connection is such a burden that it makes McCaskill the early underdog in the race.

Akin’s electoral history is much different than that of his opponent.  He reached Congress after upsetting former St. Louis County Executive Gene McNary in the 2000 Republican primary and cruising to victory in the general election.  He has since cemented himself as one of the most conservative members of Congress, forging a close alliance with Michelle Bachmann and speaking out forcefully on social issues.  His heavily Republican district has given him cover for this; as a resident of this district, I have never seen a serious challenge to him.

This sets up a race between McCaskill, the tenacious moderate, and Akin, the diehard conservative.  A lot will happen over the next three months, but I think the race will be decided through Missouri’s sharp geographic distinctions.  Republicans dominate outstate Missouri (Missour-ah, as I like to think of it), while Democrats carry the St. Louis and Kansas City (Missour-ee) areas.  This dichotomy will surely exist for McCaskill and Akin.  The question, though, is how large their margins of victory are in these respective areas.

Akin’s achilles heal could be his standing as a Missour-ee Republican.  Though his evangelical background will have appeal, rural voters are very distrustful of the cities, particularly St. Louis.  McCaskill, on the other hand, has surprising outstate appeal for a Democrat.  Her path to victory involves picking off moderate voters outstate while holding onto the Democratic strongholds of St. Louis and Kansas City.  Akin will easily carry St. Charles county and parts of western St. Louis county, but will be unlikely to sway Democrats and independents throughout the rest of the St. Louis area.  McCaskill is from Kansas City and was very popular in her time as Jackson County Prosecutor, so she will win that area by a wide margin.

With McCaskill’s victory in Missour-ee a foregone conclusion, the race will be decided in Missour-ah.  Expect to see McCaskill bolster her outstate appeal by playing up her standing as a moderate and trying to cast Akin as out of touch.  Akin will need to distance himself from his Missour-ee past and rely on social issues to solidify his standing there.

My prediction: McCaskill surprises pundits and narrowly defeats Akin.  While anti-Obama sentiment makes her the early underdog, most pundits have overlooked the importance of geography in Missouri politics.  Her tenacious approach to campaigning and use of geography will carry her to a second term in the Senate.