Tomas in Miraflores

This is the brightest day in Lima I've ever experienced (not that my experience is so vast).

Lima on a clear day

Some thoughts on Barack and his church

I was just reading this op-ed written by Cass Sunstein, and I think I had an insight into why Obama might have stuck through some 20 years of services at Trinity UCC in Chicago with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, even when he didn't agree with everything that might have been said at any given moment. I think this whole thing strikes us as so politically foolish, and we think it's hard to understand how Obama could have let this happen at all. The problem with this perspective, however, may be the difference between the kind of politics we're used to seeing from our politicians, and the new kind of politics that Obama claims to (and very well may) represent. I don't think any of us believe that Obama holds political views that are similar to that of his pastor, although the political problem for him now is that people may start to think that he does. The root of the problem, speaking for myself (and perhaps for others), though, is why he didn't foresee this as an issue? Is he really not as politically smart as he's been cranked up to be?

The context that Obama's tried to put forth is one in which Wright is a hugely popular preacher (his is the largest congregation in the entire UCC denomination) and is someone who clearly speaks to the heart of the African-American community in Chicago -- the same community where Obama got his start as a community organizer, and which he represented in the Illinois State Senate. Wright married Obama and Michelle, he baptised their daughters, and he "brought Obama to Jesus." Yet, Obama must have heard Wright say some controversial things from time to time. But if that was the case, would it not have been so much easier for Obama to conveniently move on to a less controversial church -- to one that might not end up becoming a thorn in his political side should he ever seek higher office, say, that of U.S. Senator, or beyond? If Obama is such a smart a politician (which I think he is), or if his ambition is so great (something which I think any presidential candidate must have), why then did he not long ago take what was clearly the more politically expedient path, and move on to another church at the slightest hint of potential future controversy?

I don't want to reduce his spiritual motivations to that of pure political calculation, but think about the current situation as you read the op-ed from Sunstein that I link to above. Think about the Obama that Sunstein describes here -- fiercely independent, not afraid to listen to the deep beliefs of those who think differently -- and you'll see that he's not someone who's always going to take the politically correct or "safe" path to success. (Of course, one could also explain his remaining in Wright's church as a sign of pure loyalty -- but his public distancing of himself from Wright over a year ago, just as he announced his candidacy for the presidency, as well as his recent statements, surely underscores the limits to that hypothesis.)

So what strikes me about Obama's sticking with his church is that, given where Obama came from, I can imagine that he felt it was important not to lose touch with this Afro-centric perspective -- he wanted to be challenged, not just uplifted, when he went to church. And given his general inclination to think for himself, perhaps he got caught up in his own self-confidence, not thinking that he was going to have to "denounce and reject" the political views of someone from whom he had received a great deal of spiritual insight and comfort. Is this really all that inconsistent for a guy who's made a point of saying that he would sit down with dictators as a means of resolving political tensions!

So let's call him wildly naive, politically stupid, or unreasonably loyal, but we might also entertain the notion that he's actually practicing what he preaches -- namely, that the idea of accepting "the possibility that the other side might sometimes have a point" is not something that you toss aside on your way to political power, rather it's what you embrace as the only possible way to get there.

WOLA and the Tlachinollan Human Rights Center in Mexico

I'm glad to see that my old outfit, the Washington Office on Latin America, is starting to use youtube and videos.

Here we have Ana Paula Hernandez, fundraising consultant for the Tlachinollan Human Rights Center, based in Guerrero, Mexico, talks to the Washington Office on Latin America about the relationship between the two organizations and WOLA's role in helping the Center achieve its mission.

Bob on Obama

This is a third interview I did with one of my fellow Obama suppporters, while trying to get voters to come back Tuesday night for the precinct convention.

Why Adina is for Obama

Why I support Obama

I shot this with my camera a bit ago. It's Travis -- a 20-something recent political science graduate, originally from Abilene, now living in Fort Worth. We're working together today in Precinct 4071.

Hillary's Math Problem

I haven't played around with the Slate delegate calculator, but Jonathan Alter at Newsweek has, and finds that Hillary could win the next sixteen contests handily and still not catch up in terms of pledged delegates.

So why, assuming wins Ohio today, will be forced to continue underwriting the Democratic mudslinging contest that is sure to unfold over the coming weeks, all to the benefit of John McCain?

GOTC (get out to caucus)

Things have slowed down quite a bit, but there's a steady trickle. It's actually nice for us, because then we have time to talk to (usually self-identified) Obama supporters, to explain the inexplicable -- i.e., why they MUST vote twice today. As Bill Clinton says, Texas is the only place in the country where you can vote twice without getting arrested.

Turnout in this very Republican area is running 2-to-1 for the Democrats (oh, forgot to mention there is a GOP primary going on as well!) That's a total turnaround from the traditional numbers. Hard to know, but I will not be surprised if this precinct goes 2-to-1 for Obama, many of whom say they will come back at 7 pm tonight to caucus.

Why the heck does Texas have both a primary and a caucus?

I've been asking that question for days, and had not yet gotten to the bottom of it. But I think the New Republic primer on the Texas primary explains it well:

Why The (Ridiculously Confusing) Hybrid System Exists
Up until about 30 years ago, Texas was a strong Democratic state, and presidential caucuses--the preferred system prior to 1976--were little more than local turf wars between the liberal and the conservative wings of the party establishment. According to Dr. Patrick Cox, Associate Director for Congressional and Political History at the University of Texas, prior to the 1970s, the Texas Democrats used the "unit rule," meaning that all delegates--often under the guidance of the governor--supported one candidate at the national convention. From about 1950 until the mid-'70s, the conservative wing dominated, most notably in the persons of governors R. Allan Shivers and John Connally, Jr.

But in the lead-up to the 1976 presidential nominations, conservative Democrats were concerned that the liberal faction was better organized--and that this would hurt the presidential aspirations of one of their own, then-senator Lloyd Bentsen. They made a forceful push for a primary, which they believed would give an edge to the more popular candidate, instead of the one with the best organization. Unable to roll the liberal wing of the party, the conservatives eventually settled on a compromise, where two-thirds of the pledged delegates (126 total) are decided by primary, and the remaining one-third (67) are decided in caucus. (Bentsen lost to Jimmy Carter anyway.)

Read the whole post for a good summary of further aspects of the primary/caucus system.

The joys of phone-banking

I got this email from a friend on Sunday:

Omg-a lady just cried to me & told me that she knew God made me call because she was undecided & she is now going to vote for Obama!

From NBC's First Read today

*** Other things to watch: Here are a few very plausible scenarios: Obama could net more delegates out of Vermont than Clinton does out of Ohio. Clinton can win both Ohio and Texas, 52%-48%, and lose the overall delegate battle tonight, thanks to how both Texas and Ohio award more delegates in African-American heavy areas as well as those crazy Texas caucuses. Speaking of Texas, Obama likely has a five-point cushion on the delegate front, meaning he could lose the state by five points and still net delegates. How will the media handle Clinton winning two states but Obama winning the most delegates tonight? Who wins the night? Bonus question: Who do we reward the state of Texas to if Clinton wins the popular vote in the primary but Obama nets the most delegates? And finally, for all the talk of bias against Clinton's campaign in the media, does anyone believe any other candidate could have lost 11-straight contests, be this far behind in delegates, and be simply two victories away from being back in the game? One thing the media has done is they've given Clinton every chance she wants to write her own comeback story. She gets another shot today.

Tuesday morning, 8:30 am

So, we've got 4 people hanging out right now in front of the school
for Obama. Hillary: zero presence, not even a yard sign. So that's
positive!

I'm pleasantly surprised at the number of people interested in
caucusing tonight for Obama. And it's great when some short-haired,
redneck-looking guy in a pickup truck waves at you in support. To a
person, every African-American I've met is for Obama, and most are
planning to caucus tonight. I have a feeling the energy tonight is
going to be electric.

Organizing by email

This is an example of the kind of go-get'm emails I've been receiving from our stellar organizer:

Fort Worth Warriors –

Time to shine…it’s Election Day! Before my official send off, I want to answer 3 quick questions:

1. Question: Should we switch the names on the sign-in sheets if someone from a non-viable group (ie. a few Edwards supporters) decides to switch their vote to Barack? Answer: We are working on it…for right now I wouldn’t mess with the sign-in sheets. I’ll try to get more info, though.
2. Question: What do we do if someone comes to the wrong location? Answer: Get them to the right location!!! They can’t caucus at your location – they’ve got to get in their car and drive as fast as they can to the new one!
3. Question: Where’s the party? Answer: 8:00p (or when your caucus gets out) at BoomerJack's Grill & Bar, 2600 West 7^th St., Fort Worth 76107 Come join!

Remember – enjoy today, breathe (frequently), and don’t forget that you’re part of an incredible team that supports you. And in the midst of all the craziness, take 5 seconds to remind yourself that you part of one of the most incredible campaigns in American history. That’s pretty remarkable.

Good luck, go get ‘em, and know that…

WE CAN!

All right, now off to the polls!

Election news slow tonight

The Politex blog at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram is one place to look for news, but it reports that results may be slowing in coming tonight:

Local election officials have told Politex that many polling places may not report their results until hours after the polls close at 7 p.m.

There are two reasons:

1) Polls officially close at 7 p.m. but those still in line will be allowed to vote. Local officials are bracing for the possibility that some polling locations may have more than 100 people still waiting to vote at 7 p.m.

2) Many election clerks and judges plan on participating in the precinct conventions once everyone has voted and polls close. That means some won't deliver the poll results to the county until AFTER the precinct convention, which could be hours later.

The Texas Democratic Party sent me a memo from the Secretary of State's office that said, "The responsible election judge or clerk must complete the paperwork, finish making out returns, and deliver the records and ballots to the custodian before he or she may attend the precinct convention."

In practice, at least in Tarrant County, this isn't going to happen. Tarrant County Elections Administrator Steve Raborn said he wouldn't be surprised if some polling places don't report their results to him until after midnight because the election workers were at the precinct conventions. By 11 p.m. tomorrow, he wasn't sure if he would have results from 50 percent of the county's precincts.

The Texas Two-Step

It's 6:15 am, and I'm at Starbucks in Fort Worth. I've been calling and walking and talking these past three days, and today's the big vote. I'll show up to my precinct in suburban southwest Fort Worth in about half an hour where, along with several other local volunteers, we'll maintain a "visibility" presence throughout the day, encouraging Obama voters (and, alas, surely a few others) to return to the precinct polling place (a local elementary school) later that night to caucus. Four of us met last night at the local Barnes and Nobles, and then participated in a conference call with our Obama Field Organizer, a very talented, articulate and detail-oriented 23-year-old (I'm guessing) Lily West, originally from the DC area. She's been in Iowa and Nevada, and lord knows where else for the past year, and she's a real pro. I'd hire her in a minute to organize just about anything.

I'd hoped to write some of my thoughts here earlier, but the "urgency of now" usually meant that I should make phone calls instead. Nevertheless, I'll try to do some mobile blogging today, in little snippets, whenever I have a moment's reprieve. We've got good weather for today, up to the 50s, after snowing briefly (and oddly last night) -- Saturday it was in the 80s!

I've been alternately depressed and inspired, and have absolutely NO idea what the day will be like. I did just hear that Texas's Secretary of State predicts a 3 million-plus turnout, breaking a record of some 20 years ago for a primary. What's for sure is that (1) many people are voting in their first primary ever, (2) probably 98% of those caucusing tonight will be doing so for the first time ever -- most people have never even heard of such a contraption!, and (3) I have no idea what kind of turnout the Clinton folks will deliver. Regarding the latter, they seem clearly less organized, in every conceivable way, but there is a bedrock of support for Hillary and Bill, and we'll see how that works out.

So stay tuned for the occasional, and hopefully not too mundane, observation throughout the day. Yes We Can!

Texas Diaries

So, I'm headed to Fort Worth, Texas this morning (waiting for that 4:30 am cab to National Airport), land of my youth, to vote -- and to organize. Well, if I'm luckly I'll get to organize a precinct caucus, or convention (as they call it in Texas. Caucus rhymes with "raucus", which sounds more appropriate for Cowtown, but convention better describes the conventionally conservative politics of Fort Worth.) Anyway, I think I'll have some tales to tell. I'm glad I'm leaving early, because as it turns out I've got a precinct captain training at Obama headquarters on the North Side by the Stockyards at 10 am. Hillary was kind enough to schedule a rally at 11 am just outside our door as well, so perhaps I'll get a glimpse of her.

I'll be blogging once a day (starting tomorrow morning) at Burnt Orange Report, and may or may not cross-post here. Internet connections are not so prevalent down Texas way -- gotta make a run for the Panera Bread up on University Blvd, or the Panther Coffee Shop over by TCU, or -- if I'm lucky -- I'll be able to hijack a signal from a neighbor of my brother or mother. Okay, I guess it's obvious now that I've only gotten three hours sleep.

Anyway, I'm glad to go and knock on doors for the Obama campaign. I've been telling people ever since Feb. 4th that he has a chance of winning Texas, mainly because I've been reading the very political science-y analysis of such a possibility at the Burnt Orange Report, but now it seems like it's going to happen. Maybe it'll be something to tell the grandkids about, er...., well, make that something to tell other people's grandkids about -- how I helped wrap up the Obama nomination in Texas.

'1,000 years in Iraq'

This is good:

Clinton campaign gets desperate in Texas

From today's startlegram (i.e., Fort Worth Star-Telegram), this scoop:

AUSTIN -- The Texas Democratic Party is warning that its primary night caucuses could be delayed or disrupted after aides to White House hopeful Hillary Clinton raised the specter of an "imminent" lawsuit over its complicated delegate selection process, officials said Thursday night....

"Both campaigns have made it clear that they would go there if they had to, but I think the imminent threat is coming from one campaign," said one top Democratic official, referring to the Clinton campaign. The official spoke on condition of anonymity.

Another Democratic source who was privy to the often intense discussions confirmed that representatives of the New York senator's campaign had issued veiled threats in a telephone call this week.

"Officials from Sen. Clinton's campaign at several times throughout the call raised the specter of 'challenging the process,'" the official said. "The call consisted of representatives from both campaigns and the Democratic Party."

The source, who was not authorized to speak about the matter on the record, said Clinton's political director, Guy Cecil, had pointedly raised the possibility of a courtroom battle.

"Best run campaign in American history" -- thanks to volunteers and the internet

Not sure if Mark White is referring to the campaign in Texas, or nationally. What is certain is that the spontaneous, grassroots support for Obama in Texas enabled his professional campaign staff to come in with an advantage, just as it did in Ohio.

Former Gov. Mark White of Texas:

"I'll tell you what. This is probably the best-run campaign in American history, and I've been involved in them since 1976 when I was (Texas) secretary of state," he added. "If this guy runs the country like he's run his campaign, we're all in for a happy surprise."

OR

The Wall Street Journal today:

Sen. Barack Obama's pivotal victories last month in Iowa and South Carolina over Sen. Hillary Clinton were engineered by professional staffers who worked those states for nearly a year. In Texas, the story has been a lot different. ¹

His organization in the Lone Star State, which holds its potentially decisive presidential primary on Tuesday, has been "more like a baling wire and duct tape thing," says Mitch Stewart, who is running the campaign here. Mr. Stewart and the first dozen paid Obama staffers touched down in this capital city less than three weeks ago.

The uncharacteristic late start has left the Illinois senator relying to an unusual degree on the groundwork of volunteers such as Ian Davis. The 29-year-old Austin community organizer has been laboring for months with no guidance at all from Obama headquarters. When Sen. Obama's team finally arrived, Mr. Davis handed over laundry baskets stuffed with 20,000 handwritten names of potential volunteers, which Mr. Davis had gathered on his own.

"At the end of the day," Mr. Stewart says, it will be people like Ian Davis "who win this thing."

Of course, internet tools for organizing also played a fundamental role:

As the voting in Iowa and New Hampshire approached, Mr. Davis and thousands of other Texans took advantage of a powerful tool available on the Obama campaign's national Web site, MyBarackObama.com. The system, developed in-house and modeled after an effort created in 2004 by the liberal political action group MoveOn.org, gives campaign volunteers unsupervised access to names and phones numbers of potential supporters nationwide, which campaigns usually treat as proprietary information.

Taking Stock of Barack on foreign policy

An editor at The National Interest reviews Obama's foreign policy views critically, but ends up with a good measure of respect:

Perhaps the best compliment to Senator Barack Obama and the relative integrity of his record is the distortion of his statements by his political opponents. From President Bush to former President Bill Clinton, Obama’s detractors have either mischaracterized or put considerable spin on his positions on key areas, such as Iraq, Pakistan and Iran. This could well be because Obama is at a substantive advantage vis-à-vis his Democratic and Republican challengers, given his publicly stated foresight on the Iraq War. And while Obama’s positions on important foreign-policy issues have not always been static (even to some degree on the Iraq War), Obama has demonstrated a willingness to acknowledge his prior position. Obama has therefore not resorted to that dark art of politics, alchemizing one’s prior positions in order to avoid acknowledging misjudgments or contradictions.

...Obama’s record is not free of vacillation or disconnect, but in broad strokes it seems to reflect logical cohesiveness and a tendency to stake politically risky positions in forthright terms—such as his stated willingness to meet with the Iranian leader. It is perhaps for this reason that his opponents prefer to recast his past positions, rather than reckon fairly with his record and proposals.

Hillary's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner speech

All I can say is that she's sounding awfully Obama-esque.

Stayin' Alive in Venezuela

The January 5th edition of the Wall Street Journal pays attention to some of Chavez's more pragmatic, post-referendum moves. I love the fact that, in addition to lifting some price controls, they're also busy importing food from the U.S. to make up for shortages (last para below):

"We have decided to open ourselves up to attend to street-level problems, like garbage and shortages, because we believe that you can't theorize about socialism if the people don't see government in action," said Jesse Chacon, the new government spokesman, during a press conference Friday to announce the cabinet changes.

Most observers believe Mr. Chávez's new strategy doesn't mean an end to his grand ambitions to remake Venezuela into a utopian society as well as stay in power for good to make that vision a reality. Instead, the moves signal that his own political survival may be more important to Mr. Chávez than any ideological blueprint.

"Chavez is not rigid ideologically," says Gilbert Merkx, a Latin American specialist and director at Duke University's Center for International Studies. "He is very improvisational and has a floating ideology that allows him to reinvent himself."

Not that anyone believes Mr. Chávez is about to become a believer in free markets. In a research note, the investment bank Goldman Sachs said it had "yet to detect signs that going forward the heterodox policy orientation will be reverted or moderated."

It is also far from clear that Mr. Chávez's new team is up to the task of rectifying Venezuela's growing list of economic problems. For one, many of the new cabinet members are recycled from previous posts or other spots in the government and don't bring fresh ideas. The new finance minister, Rafael Isea, was previously vice finance minister for endogenous development. The newly named planning minister wrote a book called "Capitalism is Bad Business: Principles for Socialists."

In attacking the problem of food shortages, Mr. Chávez eased a price control on one kind of milk, but most of his solutions involve greater government intervention. Houston-based logistics managers for state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA were diverted from their usual jobs in recent months and charged with buying up tons of food from the U.S. for delivery to Caracas, where they are offered to the poor at one-day outdoor markets run by the government. "We're learning on the fly," a PDVSA worker reached by telephone said of his new mission.

Latell on Cuba

In an opinion piece in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, former national intelligence officer for Latin America Brian Latell predicts a gradual economic opening in Cuba -- along the lines of a Vietnamese or Chinese model -- with Raul's ascendancy. But on governance he says it's a matter of different styles more than anything else:

Raúl's style guarantees that Cuba will be governed differently. He'll rule more collegially than his brother, consulting trusted subordinates and delegating more. During the interregnum he has worked with officials of different generations and pedigrees, even promoting one long-time archrival to create a united front after his brother's initial withdrawal.

On his watch, Raúl has broken some previously sacred crockery as well. He has admitted that Cuba's many problems are systemic. In his disarmingly accurate view, it is not the American embargo or "imperialism" that are the cause of problems on the island, as his brother always insisted, but rather the regime's own mistakes and mindsets. He has called on Cubans, especially the youth, to "debate fearlessly" and help devise solutions for the failures. Candid discussions at the grassroots level have proliferated.

Yet like his brother, Raúl has no intention of opening Cuba to free political speech or participation. While the number of Cubans willing to voice their discontent publicly is on the increase, so too is the brutality of government reprisals against would-be leaders of the dissident movement. By acknowledging state failures, Raúl is playing with fire, and if the lid is going to be kept on, those challenging the regime have to pay a price.

He also wonders about how he will navigate the relationship with Chavez, the dependency on whom has nearly reached levels similar to that of the Soviet Union:

And there is Hugo Chávez. Unlike Fidel, Raúl has no personal rapport with the mercurial Venezuelan president, and surely no desire to be subordinated to another narcissistic potentate just as he is finally close to escaping his brother's grip. But Cuba has become highly dependent economically on Venezuela. The value of the Chávez dole, mostly oil, reached between $3 billion and $4 billion last year, approaching the amounts once provided by the Soviet Union. Raúl would be loath to provoke the Venezuelan. Without his support, the Cuban economy would soon plunge into deep recession.

There is no way to know how skillfully Raúl Castro will lead and deal with inevitable crises once his brother is gone. He clearly wants to begin rectifying economic problems but knows that, for some time at least, he cannot broadly repudiate his brother's legacy. A powerful backlash could come from fidelista hard-liners in the leadership -- and perhaps from Mr. Chávez. In the end, however, it is the gamble Raúl will have to take.

El Salvador's Obama?

The popular reception of the presidential candidacy of Mauricio Funes in El Salvador is quite unique in recent history, and might be considered analogous to the rock-star status of Barack Obama. Not to mention that the potential pro-government ARENA candidates seem to be dropping out right and left.

Battling economists

A Washington economist takes on The Economist.
There's an impending, but as yet unrealized, debate here on the perspectives laid out in Michael Reid's new book, Forgotten Continent: The Battle for Latin America's Soul, which all Latin Americanists should read and discuss.

Basically, Reid sees hope not in Chavez's so-called autocratic populism, but rather in the democratic reformist governments that have come out of Mexico, Chile and Brazil.

Transparency in the Venezuelan Referendum

There are many things to say about the voting process that just took place in Venezuela this past week, but this post will focus on only one important issue: the reliability and credibility of the actual voting process administered by the Consejo Nacional Electoral (CNE), which I think we can safely assume is 100% staffed with Chavistas.

It is first important to note that, from the 2004 referendum (when only 4% of the voting tables were audited, meaning the electronic tally was compared to the paper receipt) to the 2006 presidential elections (when some 30% were audited), to the December 2 referendum on the constitutional reforms (where some 54% of the voting tables were audited), the CNE has increasingly become more transparent in its operations in order to gain the confidence of a very skeptical citizenry.

Yet two days after the referendum, many people still feel that the numbers were tampered with, and that negotiations were held with Chavez so that the actual higher margin would not make Chavez look so bad. One group, for example, claimed today that the real vote was something like 58% for the NO, and 42% for the SI. Even though the opposition leader Manuel Rosales accepted the results in last year's December 2006 presidential election as valid -- did so again today -- rumors and desconfianza persist.

So what can the CNE do about it? One diplomat told me yesterday (Monday) that the CNE should publish the results of every voting table on the internet, so that people could check the results. This would go a long way to creating greater confidence in the electoral system.

Well, in fact, as of today, the CNE has done just that -- published the preliminary results of the votes that had been counted by Sunday night night (some 90% of all tables, with some voting stations that did not use voting machines coming in later, as well as votes from abroad). You can find the results here: http://www.cne.gov.ve/divulgacion_referendo_reforma/ (The voting results of the December 2006 presidential elections are equally disaggregated and available online, in case someone wants to do further analysis of political tendencies.) The most credible member of the CNE, Vicente Diaz, gave a press conference today in which he called upon everyone to access their website, and check the results for themselves.

You might ask, what does this prove? Let me run through the steps of tallying votes, at least in one voting center in Caracas which I observed, and it will become apparent that the Venezuelan electoral process allows for unprecedented transparency and for broad citizen participation in the verification of election results.

1. At the end of the day, the members of each mesa (which in this case included one representative each of the SI and NO, along with the official supervisors) were present while electronic paper receipts were printed out. Anyone who wanted to could be present, the results are read aloud, and copies were made for the CNE as well as for others who wished to have one.
2. Depending on the size of the voting center, 1-5 tables were audited through a random selection process carried out in each voting center. The auditoria process means that the box that contains the receipts of each vote (which is deposited in a sealed box after each electronic vote) is opened and counted manually, and a public tally is made to make sure that the paper receipts match the electronic printout.
3. Once all of this is finished, the electronic numbers are transmitted electronically to the CNE, which does the final tally.

As you can see, this process allows for all sides (as well as extraneous individuals and observers) to verify the vote count of every single mesa. One can often walk away with an actual electronic copy of the voting results from each voting center, which is amply checked because of the auditing process. Now that the CNE has produced these initial results, which represents most all of the centers that used electronic voting machines, then anyone can go online and verify whether the numbers were tampered with.

This really is an amazing degree of transparency, if you ask me, and I'd like to know if there's any precedent for this anywhere else in the world. Given that the students and opposition political parties mounted a vigorous effort to monitor the results of the referendum, if they do not come forward now with firm proof of results tampering, then perhaps the Venezuelan people will finally be able to get past this issue, a step that will be key to further stimulate electoral turnout in the future.

That's the basic story. Of course, there were irregularities -- for example, some machines broke down and were not repaired, and paper ballots were not always immediately available as a backup -- but the respected domestic monitoring group, Ojo Electoral, which monitored a sample of 400 mesas, noted that there were only "isolated incidents" in an otherwise normal process.

I was able to note in one polling place where I witnessed the final vote count in Caracas (one that went 2-to-1 in favor of the NO) the professionalism and openness of the CNE workers who tried to resolve these problems. For example, here's a video I took of how they dealt with what happened when a machine failed to give the final tally:

And here's a young CNE official explaining (in English) what is to be done if a machine breaks down during the day, which happened alot:

Here's another video, that was taken during the reading of the electronic tally:

And another one that looks at how the paper audit is done:

In this last one, notice how I try to show that several people in the room are doing their own tallies as each individual vote is counted:

Random points on Sunday's referendum

Yesterday's march in favor of a NO vote on the constitutional reforms was reported by AP to be more than 100,000 strong, but interestingly the pro-government venezuelanalysis.com website reported "several hundred thousand" persons demonstrated. One person told me this was the biggest opposition rally since the ill-fated April 11, 2002 march during the coup period. The opposition clearly has a sense of momentum going into Sunday's vote, with a strong push against abstentionism emerging.

In the few conversations I've had so far of those who follow this closely, however, they are still cautious about how this will all turn out:

• One cannot underestimate the capacity of the government to get out the vote for their position, as they've done in the past. Current estimates of 60% participation (those who will "definitely" vote) are still much lower than the December 2006 presidential elections, which had 74% participation with Chavez getting 7.4 million votes (about half of all eligible voters). The opposition has a lot of energy behind it, but no systematic get-out-the-vote campaign. The polls indicate that any additions of newly decided voters will tilt the current toss-up towards the NO, but just how many people will turn out remains to be seen.
  
• The opposition is more prepared and organized to monitor and defend the results of the referendum than they have been in the past, but -- I'm not sure this extends to rural areas, which is where the government will be able to mobilize people overwhelmingly. One person mentioned voting tables that had gone 100% for Chavez in the past (indicating either a capacity for mobilization or an unfettered capacity for tinkering with the numbers in these areas.)
• One person mentioned that there is often a secret vote for Chavez among middle and upper-middle class voters, who essentially vote their pocketbook (since they're doing quite well). I haven't heard of anyone who's really studied voting patterns, but this should be easily verifiable after the fact.
  

Stay tuned.

Washington Post weighs in on WOLA drug claims

Several weeks ago, a story from AP found found Justice Department and GAO findings contrasted with the claims by drug czar John Walters of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) that the "unprecedented" recent spike in cocaine prices was evidence that US drug policy was working.

Now, Michael Dobbs, who writes "The Fact Checker" blog at the Washington Post website, has weighed in, spurred on by WOLA's recent press release challenging Walters' triumphant rhetoric. While Dobbs ended up saying the verdict on the facts is pending (and asking readers to provide other views), he finds that there is great skepticism on both sides of the aisle in Congress over ONDCP's methodology.

Dobbs also publishes a graph from a RAND report commissioned by the ONDCP, which finds a long-term decline in cocaine prices:

Dobb comments:

The most striking point in this graph is the long-term downward trend in retail cocaine prices, despite all the efforts at interdiction undertaken by successive U.S. administrations. By eyeballing the chart, you can see that there were significant price spikes in 1982, 1990, 1994, and 2000, which are
comparable to the recent increase. Each spike was followed by another sharp decline, as producers responded to the higher prices. Compared to historical levels, cocaine prices are still very low, particularly if you factor in inflation.

The RAND data is not strictly comparable to the latest DEA data as it measures the retail slice of the market, rather than average purchase prices. (RAND data for other slices of the market show similar peaks and troughs.) But it certainly suggests that policy-makers should be more cautious in using terms
like "unprecedented."

... One of the principal authors of the RAND study, Peter Reuter, a professor of public policy at the University of Maryland, said he was troubled by the way the DEA and ONDCP (the drug czar's office) kept changing its statistical methodology. "I don't understand why they don't run the series the same way (as RAND), just to remove any doubts that the data is solid. It would be much more convincing if they did that."

The ONDCP has its own blog, Pushing Back: Making the Drug Problem Smaller, which a week ago offered a rebuttal of WOLA's critique. However, ONDCP was obviously looking for a more definitive pat on the back from Dobbs than what they received, when they wrote:

On a more optimistic note, WOLA apparently sent their press release claim to the Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs, who runs a "Fact Checker" feature for the paper. At Dobbs' request, we have provided the full data story correcting
the record about WOLA's claims, showing why their assertions are off the mark. We look forward to a fair accounting of the situation.

A speech worth reading

I don't know if I'm going to start writing on this blog again, but I've been thinking about it lately. And then just now I got a hold of a magnificently eloquent speech to Honors Students at Texas Christian University given by a political science professor, Mike Dodson. I've had the privilege of counting Mike among my friends for nearly 30 years now, and although I've learned much from my regular dialogues with him, I also envy his students.

AN APPEAL FOR POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT

Over the past year I’ve discovered one thing with stunning clarity! If you’re going to win the Honors Recognition Award, you’d better have a stout ego. Otherwise, you’re toast because you’re going to agonize for 364 days over what you’ll say at the Honors Banquet!

For my part, I hoped for sudden inspiration. I hoped to be like Rousseau. On his way to visit Diderot in prison, his mind was suddenly “dazzled by a thousand lights, by a crowd of ideas”. With what clarity would [I then] have then pointed out all of the contradictions of our social system!”

But, I didn’t have Rousseau’s luck (actually, that might be a good thing considering how his life turned out!). No such epiphany occurred. In the end I decided to use this occasion simply to discuss something I care a lot about. That’s why my subject, like Dr. Benjamin Barber’s this morning, is American democracy. My thesis is that we should be concerned for its well being. My aim is to persuade the students present that they can and should do something about it.

I took my first interest in politics in January, 1961—the day we inaugurated a charismatic young politician to be our president. I listened to that inauguration on the radio, relying on my imagination to picture John Kennedy and the great occasion of installing a president. I was 17 years old.

Listening to President Kennedy speaking of his passion for America’s ideals and his vision of our future was an electrifying moment. I hope this doesn’t sound corny, or seem like a cliché. His speech inspired my first interest in politics. It led me for the first time to think beyond the concerns of my private life. Kennedy’s call to public service set me on the path that became my vocation and avocation. To this day I can feel the exhilaration of being asked, along with other young Americans, to redeem democracy by engaging in political life.

I was so inspired, actually, that the day after graduating from high school I tried to join the Peace Corps! I can still see the bemused look on the face of the fellow who interviewed me. He politely suggested that before rushing off to serve my country I might first want to learn something that would be useful to it! He suggested I give college a try.

As it turned out, I didn’t enter the Peace Corps or the Foreign Service, as I had intended. By my junior year in college the Vietnam War had brought teach-ins and sit-ins to the staid, conservative campus of the University of South Dakota. Patriotism runs deep in South Dakota (believe me when I say that South Dakotans can give Texans a run for their money on that subject!). But even there serious challenges were being raised as to the morality of the war and the truthfulness of our leaders. These disturbances caused me a lot of anguish and sent me searching for answers—especially, I might add, during the two years I spent in the army! Eventually, I saw that in politics the answers are often contentious and ambiguous, but the key to enlightenment is asking the right questions.

This is how I ended up studying and later teaching political theory—a discipline that specializes more in formulating good questions than in giving definitive answers. Many students think of political theory as “old masters and musty texts”, but it’s actually a dynamic, evolving tradition that’s equally useful to each succeeding generation. My own study of those “musty texts” taught me that the moral ambiguities haunting the United States in Vietnam were hardly new and that the need to control even democratic leaders is age old. Consider Athens, history’s most fabled democracy. The ambition of Alcibiades and the timidity of Nicias certainly demonstrated (in the disaster at Syracuse) the need for a democratic citizenry to ask the right questions! Thucydides, our first political theorist, taught us just how fraught the exercise of power is—both with the possibility of doing “good” and the danger of doing harm—and how easy it is to fall prey to hubris. In my youth the United States committed this error in Vietnam and did great harm to itself and others.

Recalling these memories leads me to contemplate the present generation. You, too, are coming of age in the shadow of an unsettling war. And I wonder: did President Bush’s call to defeat terrorism after the September 11 attacks inspire you to think of public service? Did his later call to promote democratic freedom across the globe inspire you in the way that President Kennedy’s call to “bear any burden” for liberty inspired an earlier generation? Were you persuaded that America has a great moral mission in the world? Have you been disillusioned by the cruel contradictions that the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq have forced upon us?

I ask these questions because I’m concerned about the quality of citizenship in our country today. At TCU we declare that our mission is to train ethical leaders for a global society. Political science plays an important role in this mission by informing us about the institutions and behaviors that direct national and international life. However, since its origins in ancient Athens, political science has also sought the knowledge and skills that are needed to make good judgments in exercising power. Two implications follow from these statements: first, political science should foster the skills needed for active citizenship; and second, the first principle of citizenship is informed skepticism toward the exercise of power.

The problem, of course, from Aristotle’s day to ours, is that this sort of thing is often viewed with suspicion—and never more so than in times of crisis—which is precisely when it is needed most! We would do well to remember how ready Athenians were to cast doubt on Socrates’ loyalty 2500 years ago. The “swift boating” of those who question power or policy today is only the contemporary iteration of this tendency. Far from being unpatriotic, approaching leadership and power skeptically is both necessary and patriotic. Political theorists make excellent guides in this regard. Even Machiavelli, who we tend to regard as the most cynical of men, pursued political theory because he was passionately engaged with the concerns of public life. “I love my country more than my own soul” Machiavelli once said. But this devotion did not prevent him from making radical criticisms of his country’s politics—indeed, it was the very source of those criticisms.

Margaret Thatcher once quipped: “There is no such thing as society, only individuals pursuing their interests”. Political theory originates in a different viewpoint—from the Aristotelian observation that we are by our nature “social and political beings”. Political theory appreciates our shared, public life, but treats it critically from a moral point of view. The need for this is constant in a democratic society.

Even though I believe that today’s university offers rich opportunities to develop a critical, humane cast of mind, I’m still worried. I’m troubled by the shift that has taken place in broader American attitudes over the course of my lifetime. The appeal of disinterested public service that seemed so palpable to me in 1961 has been allowed—even encouraged—to wither. A mindset that treats government as the problem not the solution to our shared concerns has taken hold. No less a figure than Milton Friedman has ridiculed President Kennedy’s call to “to ask what you can do for your country”. The present mindset so privileges the private sphere of our lives that it marginalizes cultivation of the public sphere. Perhaps, I lack the stature to disagree publicly with a Nobel laureate, but I will anyway, because to me, this way of thinking contradicts the democratic ethos.

Its fruits are readily apparent. We have experienced steep declines in political participation. One hundred million Americans sat out the fateful national election of 2000. One recent study of participation rates in 37 countries shows the U.S. in third from last place. Each of the last two presidents won re-election with the support of less than 25% of the eligible electorate. At the same time, the democratic process is a direct reflection of our national sensibilities. So, what does it say about us that we cannot summon the will to rebuild a great American city that’s been destroyed by a hurricane? How comforting can it be that a Spaniard or a Bulgarian is three times more likely than an American to say that the political community has a collective responsibility to care for those who are too poor to care for themselves?

This growing neglect of our public business has its perverse complement in a second tendency. Even as leaders disparage public solutions to domestic problems, they seem to regard concentrated political power as the only possible solution to political challenges emanating from abroad. So, we refrain from using our collective energies to address political problems at home, but we avidly embrace the use of American power to remake the world beyond our shores. The irony of this cannot be lost on any of us!

These divergent trends threaten the quality of American democracy. The first de-politicizes Americans and discourages pursuit of a “common good”. The second alienates us from the political power we’re supposed to control. When that power is uncontrolled, it gravitates to national security agencies that operate in secrecy. The combined effect is to hollow out political life and drain it of democratic substance. In these conditions we are taken to war without the sustained deliberations that should be the hallmark of a democratic society.

In light of these reflections, I’d like to comment briefly on our present war. The terrorist attacks on the United States left Americans stunned and disbelieving. We lacked a frame of reference for making sense of what happened. Most Americans wanted a decisive response, and we certainly got one—a declaration of war on global terrorism. The war was framed as a Manichean conflict between good and evil and it was launched as a crusade. In a context of weakened citizenship, September 11^th brought out the severest consequences of a peculiar American disposition to behave as though we have a special dispensation to right the wrongs of the world.

We opted to act unilaterally, to wage preventive war against other countries at our sole discretion—in defiance, even, of the international community. In George Packer’s words, we “admitted no daylight between American interests and democratic ideals.” We demanded that all countries take sides—to be with us or know that we considered them to be on the side of the terrorists.

We should ask ourselves: is America, acting as an unrestrained superpower, proof of the vitality of our democracy, or of something else? My concern is this. The expansion of the imperial state brings with it the steady growth of executive power. The troubling corollary seems to be an “imperial citizen”, an individual whose powers and responsibilities steadily shrink! Notice that in this war on terrorism, including the terrifyingly costly war in Iraq, we citizens have not been asked to make any sacrifices or to engage in any way directly in the war effort. Instead, we’ve been urged to live “normally”—to simply go shopping or to the movies. Am I being too critical to suggest that this amounts to replacing the democratic citizen with a mere subject absorbed in self-gratification? Tocqueville warned against this very thing. When a democracy fails to engage its citizens, he wrote, popular politics will be displaced by a cultural populism of sameness, resentment, and mindless patriotism.

The Iraq war was the logical consequence of power too concentrated, an excess of righteousness about our imperial role, and too little public debate about why we needed to go to war. We conflated two distinct enemies. Saddam Hussein, a nasty tyrant who was no direct threat to the United States was confused with Al Qaeda, a stateless enemy that almost certainly cannot be defeated by conventional military means.

A presidential directive of August 2002 set out the goals that guided the invasion of Iraq. It’s very sobering to consider them now, four years later. We would find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, end Iraq’s threat to its neighbors, cut its links to international terrorism, maintain the unity of the country, and assist them in creating a moderate, democratic society. Tragically, today these goals are in tatters. There were no WMD. Iraqis escaped the tyranny of Saddam only to be subjected to the tyranny of anarchy and uncontrolled violence. U.S. intelligence agencies now report that “the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives.” These terrorists were a consequence, not a cause of the U.S. invasion. The so-called “unity” government in Iraq is so riven by political and sectarian disputes that it simply mirrors the civil war that rages throughout the country. In Iraq the rule of the tyrant has been replaced by the rule of the gunmen.

President Bush has come in for his share of blame over this catastrophe. My question is: “how much of the blame do we ourselves deserve”? If we were an engaged citizenry we could act as a countervailing power, a potentially strong check against such blunders. Also in 2002 Donald Rumsfeld, said to a visiting Iraqi delegation: “Wouldn’t it be a wonderful thing if Iraq were similar to Afghanistan, if a bad regime was thrown out, people were liberated . . . repression could stop, prisons could be opened? I mean, it would be fabulous.” Indeed it would have. But did we have clear ideas about the forms that effective democracy could take in Iraq? This was such a vital question and it seems hardly to have been asked. Certainly, it was not seriously discussed and debated by the American people. Apparently, we were in no mood to reflect critically on President Woodrow Wilson’s claim made 90 years ago that America has the moral authority “to show the way to the nations of the world how they shall walk in the paths of liberty.” Iraq today mocks that moral authority and there is cause for concern about the erosion of democracy here at home.

I’d like to give one example of this erosion, and then close with an appeal to the students. My example is the ever expanding claims of executive power. It is now being said that the war powers of the commander-in-chief displace civilian law. This interpretation would allow the president to make the law on his or her own authority so long as the president says we are at war. (Bear in mind that the war on terror is open-ended!) Such an interpretation would seem to take us back to the age of Charles I! It would erase three centuries of struggle to bring the executive under the law. Restraining executive power and affirming the rights of citizens—these are crowning achievements of modern democracy.

What warrant can there be for turning back the clock to an unlamented age of authoritarianism? Even Alexander Hamilton, one of the most ardent defenders of executive power, warned against the danger of a Caesar or a Cromwell. Do we really want the executive branch to tap our phones without a warrant, deny the fundamental right of habeas corpus to “enemy combatants, create its own “Devil’s Island” at Guantanamo Bay? Are we prepared to accept that we have fostered the conditions in which the very prisons that Secretary Rumsfeld envisioned emptying out in Iraq have instead filled up—mostly with innocent Iraqis who are once again being subjected to arbitrary, punitive treatment by the people in charge.

We have known since the war for independence that concentrated executive power is a threat to the values and rights we cherish. What do we gain by waging a war on terrorism, or by invading other countries to bring them democracy, if we ourselves forsake democratic practices? Let’s remember Rousseau’s warning that “the greater the strength possessed by the government for the restraint of the people, the greater should be the strength that is possessed by the people . . . in order to restrain the government.”

So, what then is the challenge for your generation? Americans revere democracy because of its touted respect for individual freedom. There is a strong current of thought today that takes this only to mean that government should leave us alone—except, of course, when it comes to national security. I suggest that young Americans think about democracy another way—as both the best method for controlling power and the best means of bringing considered judgment to bear on the exercise of power. If you thought of it that way, you would cherish democracy because you saw that it was superior at controlling ambition, arrogance, hubris, and other follies to which human beings are prone. You might well side with James Madison on the need to “oblige government to control itself”, but you would also stand with the Athenians in your conviction that an educated, engaged citizenry is a means superior even to the separation of powers for accomplishing this task.

Prometheus gave fire and techne to human kind, a share, so to speak, of the divine attributes. But Protagoras tells us that something was missing because human beings lacked “the art of government”. Fearing disaster, Zeus sent Hermes to impart justice to mankind. And who, asked Hermes, should receive it—some select few? Believers in democracy, from Protagoras to the present, have celebrated the god’s answer: No, Zeus replied, “to all; I should like them all to have a share for cities cannot exist if only a few share in this virtue”. This has been the democratic faith of American leaders from Thomas Jefferson to John Dewey—that all men and women, when properly educated, can contribute their judgment to the deliberations that lead to justice.

The seminal article of democratic faith is that good judgment is most likely to prevail in settings of wide participation and vigorous debate, in which the wisdom of an engaged citizenry can be expressed. This supposition powerfully complements the great republican principle that freedom is best defended by keeping everyone, even the most exalted leaders, under the control of law. In its history the United States has been as devoted to these two propositions as any large state ever has. But I perceive that we have drifted a long way from the America that once avidly encouraged civic education (the America that men like Benjamin Barber are trying to restore): the America of the lyceum movement, for instance, and the Chautauqua circuit, an America that sought to make every public place a locale for cultivating critical citizenship. That America gave us citizens like Emerson and Greeley, Lincoln and Thoreau, Susan B. Anthony and Oliver Wendell Holmes.

My hope for our country is that the next generation may rededicate us to these principles and practices. A patriotic America does not have to be punitive, single-minded and self-righteous. Your generation can rebuild our moral capital among the nations of the world in two ways—by building a more robust democracy at home and by having the courage to show more restraint abroad. If America is to lead in the world of the 21^st century as a democracy, neither its citizens nor its leaders can be shy of self-criticism or indifferent to accountability. I don’t think it’s too grand to ask that you take Socrates as your model: he believed that you strengthen your political community by questioning the exercise of power and that the truest citizens always challenge the state to live up to the ideals it proclaims.

Michael Dodson

April 19, 2007