Marbury

obama's favourite romney adviser

This is Robert Kagan, historian and foreign policy scholar. Broadly speaking an ideological conservative, Kagan is nonetheless the kind of guy that politicians from across the spectrum like to be seen reading. He's a true heavyweight, a notch up the scale from the Niall Fergusons of the world, and a very good writer, whose subtle arguments are crafted from sonorous, stately sentences.

His latest essay, published in The New Republic, is vintage stuff, and is much talked-about in Washington. Entitled 'The Myth of America's Decline,' it argues, persuasively, that the conventional wisdom about America's decline as a superpower is based not just on an underestimation of its present power and future potential but on an over-estimation of its historic omnipotence. America has always struggled to assert itself, militarily  and economically, over an unruly world; there was no golden age of stability, or of universal respect for American values.

Josh Rogin reports that the president himself is a fan of Kagan - despite the fact that Kagan advised McCain and now advises Romney. In fact, Kagan's TNR essay influenced Obama's State of the Union address:

"The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe," Obama said in his State of the Union address Tuesday evening. "Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn't know what they're talking about".

Just hours earlier on Tuesday, in an off-the-record meeting with leading news anchors, includingABC's George Stephanopoulos and NBC's Brian Williams, Obama drove home that argument using an article written in The New Republic by Kagan entitled "The Myth of American Decline." Obama liked Kagan's article so much that he spent more than 10 minutes talking about it in the meeting, going over its arguments paragraph by paragraph, National Security Council spokesmanTommy Vietor confirmed to The Cable. National Security Advisor Tom Donilon will also discuss Kagan's essay and Obama's love of it Thursday night with Charlie Rose on PBS.

Kagan's essay is really worth the time.

Via Ezra Klein, from whom I nicked my headline.

school of lies

This Thursday evening I'll be hosting a discussion on 'Why We Lie', at the School of Life in Bloomsbury, London. If you're in town and at a loose end, come along. Here's the blurb:

We all hate it, and yet we all do it. Lying is intrinsic to being human. But, rather than resist this uncomfortable truth, can we learn from taking an honest look at why we lie?

Leading us on fascinating tour through psychology, anthropology, literature and history, Ian Leslie discusses why it is that we all need to lie to each other - and to ourselves - to get by. Along the way he analyses the lie detector, how parents shape their children’s untruthful behaviour, Bill Clinton’s presentational style, Wonder Woman’s lasso of truth, the philosophical ambivalence of being truthful, how we have thrived as a species because of our ability to lie, and why we should distrust anyone with more than 150 friends on Facebook. His lively and witty talk will provoke us to consider our own attitude to truth, the relationship of creativity to being a good fibster, and the question of what makes a ‘necessary’ lie.

Lively and witty. Oh.

We'll also discuss why we lie to ourselves, and why that's good as well as bad.

It's at 7pm. You can book tickets here.

(And if you haven't read Born Liars yet, I mean really, you have no excuse.)

the erosion of constraint

When it comes to the financial crisis, one of the most difficult issues to get straight is whether it was caused by bad people knowingly doing bad things, or by a skewed system that turned the actions of normally self-interested individuals into collectively destructive behaviour. In a recent interview, Francis Fukuyama, author of The End of History (that was a long time ago), offers a convincing synthesis of these two positions:

Lloyd Blankfein doesn’t get up in the morning and say, “OK. How are we going to defraud people today?” but I do think the relationship of these banks to social rules is fairly dodgy. Rules are viewed as potential obstacles that you try to get around if that maximises your profit. This is a deeper social issue that I think has to do with the economisation of a lot of thinking. Economists have this model of rational utility maximisation – that social benefit comes out of everybody pursuing their private rational self-interest. This has shaded over – imperceptibly over the past couple of generations – to a downplaying of social norms as constraints on behaviour. You see this in a number of places. In business schools, for example. Back in the 1960s and 70s, business schools regarded themselves as professional schools along the lines of law schools or architecture schools. They were meant to inculcate a certain sense of professional responsibility, that you have obligations to society at large. But as a result of the economisation of a lot of what was taught in these schools, individual profit maximisation began to displace this normative sense, and this spilled over into the behaviour of the people who went on from these programmes into the financial sector. In their minds, they weren’t deliberately trying to defraud people, but if they saw an opportunity to take advantage of less sophisticated buyers of subprime mortgages, they would go ahead and do it.

Full interview at The Browser.

newt drowning

 

Last night saw the final debate before Florida. It just might be the final debate of the nomination campaign, at least, the last one anyone watches. Gingrich's poll ratings in the Sunshine state are sinking, and Romney has retaken the lead there, helped by his ability to outspend his rival 10-1 on TV. Unless Gingrich can conjure up yet another surge between now and Tuesday, then Romney will crush him in Florida and almost certainly secure the nomination.

Gingrich had what was probably his last chance last night. The general consensus is that he blew it. He was tetchy, overly defensive and tired. He allowed Romney, whom he clearly despises, to get under his skin. He was too easily goaded into rhapsodising about space programs, which, even in Florida (home of the Space Coast), can make him seem a little detached from reality.

His bad night was compounded by two rivals having a good one. Santorum put in a relatively strong performance - strong enough, anyway, to stay in contention for second or third place, and thus prevent the anti-Romney vote from coalescing further behind Gingrich. Most importantly, Romney was superb. After a little loss of focus in the last couple of debates, he was back on his game, conveying command and poise and, when needed, great knife skills.

The above exchange was one of the pivotal moments. Gingrich, slightly half-heartedly, takes on Romney over his investments; Romney, completely prepared for the attack, turns it back on Gingrich and redoubles its power. Newt almost shrinks behind his podium.

Note the moment that Gingrich, struggling to defend himself, says that comparing him as an investor to Romney is like comparing "a tiny mouse to a giant elephant". At which point you can see Romney smile and think, "Yep, happy with that image."

how do you solve a problem like newt?

"You like me, right?"

(Photo: Reuters.)

Newt may be doing well amongst Republican voters, but Republican bigwigs have their terrified gaze fixed on another set of voters: the general public, whose opinion of Newt is decidedly low. Decidedly being the operative word - unlike most candidates, Newt has been prominent in national politics for so long that voters don't really need to know more to make up their minds. And anyway, in Newt's case, more visibility doesn't mean more likeability:

But still the Newt surges: he is now leading in Florida polls. If he wins there, he becomes the favourite to win the nomination. I'm not sure Romney has a clue how to react to being Newted. The trouble is, Mitt has high intelligence and zero imagination, and that makes it extra-difficult to react to an opponent so unconventional in style. Here is Mark Steyn's summary of Romney's bland, generic stump speech: “I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that’s the America millions of Americans believe in. That’s the America I love.”

Perhaps what Romney's advisers need to do is get him in a diner and make him cry (perhaps with a question about his hair). But then, of course, Romney's problem in this contest isn't likeability, it's credibility. Republican voters don't believe him when he says he's a true conservative. They don't even believe him when he says he's the candidate most likely to beat Obama - and that's true.

In the end, I think Romney's money, organisation, establishment backing, and dogged refusal to fall over will tell. The Newt has plenty of vulnerabilities that haven't yet been fully mined, including and his especially his lucrative consulting career, and his willingness to cuddle up to Nancy Pelosi on a sofa. (Romney started exploiting them rather effectively in last night's otherwise uneventful debate.)

Romney may even be a better, sharper, more human candidate by the end of this process. But somehow I doubt he's going to emulate Hillary and discover the happy warrior inside. Mitt is superficial all the way down.

obama's song for the voters

Quite something:

Without wishing to make too much of this, it does indicate and convey that this is a president who is full of confidence, in election year. It's also a reminder of Obama's charm, which, though he exercises it sparingly, is powerful. Can you imagine Mitt Romney doing this? I'm not even sure I want to.

terrorist-tracking crows

One of the most extraordinary stories I read this week:

The United States military funded research into using networks of 'spy crows' to locate soldiers who are missing in action, and extended the work to see if the birds might be useful in helping them to find Osama bin Laden. The idea may seem far-fetched, but unlike some military research programs it is actually based on sound science.

Apparently crows can recognise and remember human faces. Who knew? The story of the experiments behind the science is absolutely fascinating (warning: it involves Dick Cheney masks). Neurophilosophy has it.

why we only call our mother once in a while

All families, happy or unhappy, have the same argument: parents accuse their children of not listening to them, and children say whatever. As a parent, it's hard not to be convinced that your offspring, as they grow up, are more likely to be influenced by their friends at school or by a celebrity on TV than by the people that raised them. The sad thing is, parents may well be right. But if it's any consolation, humans may not be the only primate of whom this is true. 

One of the fundamental features of human interaction is that we follow each other's gaze. We do it instinctively and unthinkingly, whether we're in conversation with someone or passing someone in the street who is staring at the sky. Magicians know just how irresistible the pull of another person's gaze can be, and how to manipulate it. Gaze-following is one of the most important ways we keep track of what's going on in our immediate environment. It means we can share the work of vigilance; of getting the news from the world around us. Indeed, it may be that our eyes evolved a strong colour contrast - dark circles on a white backdrop - to help us follow each other's gazes.

Like humans (and many other animals), macaque monkeys notice when a member of their group turns to look at something, and then turn to see what's up. Two British scientists recently discovered something very interesting about the way macaques follow each other's gaze. Jerome Micheletta and his colleague Bridget Waller were paying close attention to the gap between a monkey noticing a change of gaze, and it turning to look in response. They found, to their surprise, that the time lag varied depending on who made the initial gaze. Macaques tend to team up in friendship pairs, to groom each other, pick off fleas, play backgammon, etc. When it was a family member or group leader doing the gazing, the macaque took its time about turning to look in the same direction. But when it was a friend doing the gazing, they followed the gaze immediately.

Micheletta and Waller aren't sure why this should be, and speculate that perhaps it's because macaques view their friends as more important than their family (this is undoubtedly what their mother would say). They think it might shed light on human behaviour but aren't sure what it means.

It made this non-scientist think of a well-established phenomenon in sociology: the strength of weak ties. In 1973 the sociologist Mark_Granovetter published a classic paper which found that people were nearly three times as likely to have found their job through a “personal contact” than through the official channels - an ad or a teacher or recruiter. Well, we all know it's who rather than what you know, but the really interesting part of Granovetter's paper was that 80% of those helpful personal contacts were people seen only 'occasionally' or 'rarely'. Using this and other examples, Granovetter built the theory of weak ties (other researchers have subsequently found further evidence for it). The people closest to us, including our family, aren't actually that useful as information sources, because we know them too well, and they know us too well, and we share the same information. When it comes to being informed about the world around us, we learn most from people who know us only a little. Sorry, mum.

To follow this blog - and me - on Twitter, click here.

the hair goes with the man

It may be Romney's greatest asset, or his curse. Or neither. But it's certainly impressive. What's more - thanks to McSweeney's - it speaks:

There is no primary. There is no general. There is only this: I am Mitt Romney’s haircut. This is my year, and I will not be denied.

Everything about me is presidential. You may not even know why, but you’ve all thought it, and that’s no accident. I’ve been designed precisely for this moment. I’m a hybrid of every classic American presidential hairstyle since the 1930s. Roosevelt’s fatherly gray temples. Kennedy’s insouciant bouffant. Reagan’s lethal, revolutionary amalgam of feathering and pomade.

The Haircut's only worry is that the general election will prove too easy. Is Obama ready?

In 2012 he’s up against the greatest ivy league/pompadour hybrid ever seen in American politics. And for this epic battle, the president has equipped himself with a buzz cut? I understand, his options are limited. But let’s at least make it interesting. Hit me with a fade, a high-and-tight, a flat-top.

I implore you to read the whole thing. Also, and slightly more soberly, this, from the New York Times:

Nobody has a more complicated and intimate relationship with Mr. Romney’s hair than the man who has styled it for more than two decades, a barrel-chested, bald Italian immigrant named Leon de Magistris.

For years, Mr. de Magistris said in an interview, he has tried to persuade Mr. Romney, 64, to loosen up his look by tousling his meticulous mane.

“I will tell him to mess it up a little bit,” said Mr. de Magistris, 69. “I said to him, ‘Let it be more natural.’ ”

The suggestion has not gone over well. “He wants a look that is very controlled,” Mr. de Magistris said. “He is a very controlled man. The hair goes with the man.”

making do

From the New Yorker, this is pretty much my sense of where the Republican Party is at:

(Hat tip: SK.)

inevitable

Photo: Melina Mara/Washington Post

Romney's victory in New Hampshire was not a surprise but it will be no less satisfying to him for that. It was a very convincing win: his share of the vote was at the upper end of expectations. Even more importantly, none of his rivals come out looking stronger than they did before they went in. Ron Paul, whose support has a natural ceiling on it anyway, came a creditable second. Huntsman failed to surge past Paul, the only way he could have made news and gained momentum. Gingrich and Santorum languished in third and fourth; Perry barely scraped his way to 1%. The voting season is proving to be a lot more predictable and less crazy than the pre-season.

Now, the race moves to South Carolina, whose primary takes place on January 21. This may well be the decisive contest; certainly, if Romney wins, it will be. At the moment, that is looking likely. 

The best hope of the other candidates is to be the last man standing, but for Romney. This is why, despite Romney leading the pack, there have been relatively few attacks on him so far (although Gingrich is throwing a few bombs). Everyone knows the party isn't in love with him. So the second-tier candidates are locked into a fight with each other, betting, against very long odds, that if and when it comes down to Romney and one other guy, the voters will think again. However this is about as likely to happen as Rick Perry finishing a book.

Finally, an ominous sign for the Republicans: turnout was down on 2008. Think about that for a second: in 2008, Republican voters were demoralised after the Bush years and few thought their side could win. This year, they are meant to be far more fired up: they have endured a Democratic president for three years. By all measures, they have a much better chance of winning the White House this time around. You'd expect turnout to be way up. That it is down suggests that the party has simply failed to produce candidates that meet the aspirations of its own electorate. Somewhere, David Plouffe is smiling. But without letting anyone see.

how will obama run against romney?

Photograph: Rick Wilking/Reuters

Mitt Romney, after winning first actual vote of the primary season, has knocked out or badly wounded all of his viable rivals (if any of them can truly be said to have earned that adjective). He now looks almost certain to be the Republican nominee, if only by default.

This has been the most likely outcome for quite a while, but despite this, the New York Times reports that Obama still hasn't figured out how to take on Romney in the general:

The bigger conundrum for the Obama campaign is how to balance its two lines of criticism of Mr. Romney, particularly if he wins the nomination.

Do they go the out-of-touch, protector-of-Wall-Street route or the flip-flopper route?

The third option, as adumbrated and advocated by Kevin Drum, is to paint Romney as a "rightwing nutcase" in hoc to a party gripped by extremism.

To me, it seems obvious that the best route is 'flip-flopper', and I'd be surprised if the Obama campaign doesn't use it as its central line of attack. Let me explain why.

As I've remarked before, the most important component of any successful political attack strategy is truth; attacks work when they identify and build on something about an opponent that voters already sense to be true. The "right-wing nutcase" strategy doesn't pass that test. Romney has been very careful not to let himself be pulled too far right, in substance, during the primaries. More importantly, he just doesn't come across as a zealous or ideological character. Indeed, his problem is at the opposite end of the scale.

The wealthy/out-of-touch framing is closer to the truth, and I am sure it will form one line of attack. But if it's too prominent, it risks making Romney seem like a Big Guy; the entrepreneurial, ruthless alpha male of the race.

The flip-flop charge, however, is both true, and likely to be very effective. The fact is, Romney has very publicly changed his mind on several big issues over the years, and has left some great footage behind in his wake. 'Flip-flop' doesn't quite cover it. It's not simply that he changes his mind (as the NYT says, that might be interpreted by the voters as sensible pragmatism); it's that each time he takes up a new position he communicates it with the same moist-eyed sincerity as he did the last one. In the end, this isn't about intellectual inconsistency, it's about character - and that, rather than policy, is what a presidential contest is all about.

When combined with his awkward, robo-pol manner, self-basting hair and lack of the common touch, Romney's history of shape-shifting makes him seem hopelessly inauthentic: an archetypal politician in an age when everyone hates politicians. I think the Obama campaign will hammer away at this theme relentlessly - and I think it will work.

To follow this blog - and me - on Twitter, click here.

with friends like this (part ii)

If Ed Miliband fails to make a breakthrough this year, there will be many, particularly amongst those who supported him for the leadership, who blame it on the terrible business of modern politics. The tragedy of Ed, they will say - are already saying - is that he's an intellectual who doesn't do showbusiness; an homme sérieux in an age that demands circus performers (they used to say this about Gordon Brown, too. As with Ed, a comparison is invariably drawn to the epitome of style over substance, Tony Blair). Such a conclusion will be used to obscure or salve a discomforting thought: that Miliband's political analysis is too shallow for the electorate, rather than the other way around.

Take, for example, the proposition that businesses are divided into nice ones and nasty ones, or that the last thirty years of British government have been essentially one disastrous continuum, an argument made in the New Statesman this week by one of Miliband's closest friends and advisers, Marc Stears. Only a professor of political theory could string together such a list of unexamined banalities and get away with it:

Our politics is in flux and confusion is the almost inevitable result. The flux is the direct consequence of the crash of 2008. That event did not just bring over a decade of Labour government to its end, it also displayed the bankruptcy of a political, social and economic order that began in the 1980s and continued unabated through the premierships of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

...It was an order premised on the idea that the financial might of the City of London would power economic growth in the UK so long as it was left essentially unfettered by the demands of normal democratic politics. The tax revenues that then flowed from the City would prop up the rest of the country, either by supporting employment through public sector expansion or by provided a financial guarantee for welfare benefits. Labour opposed this order in its early days. But it eventually largely capitulated to it. In the Party's "New Labour" formation, it openly committed itself to maintaining the same order, just running it more efficiently and more equitably than the Conservatives had.

So, now you know: in case you were under the impression that New Labour did anything significantly different from the Thatcher government, you were wrong. Well, as Philip Larkin might say, useful to get that learnt. No subtlety or nuance here: Blair and Brown didn't even abate Thatcherism; later on, Stears says there were only "minor differences" between Thatcher and Blair (and note the unembarrassed nostalgia for the pre-Blair Labour Party). I haven't come across such a sophisticated reading of political history since since I last visited the bottom half of Comment Is Free. 

Like most of Miliband's speeches, the piece floats in a fog of abstraction and generalisation. Note that Stears doesn't provide any figures to support his contention that the City "powered" Britain's economic growth under New Labour or that the country's public services became dependent on its tax revenues. Why let figures or facts muddy a good old Faust story? 

Stears continues with an encomium to the current Labour leader:

He was the first to identify the dangers our economic malaise posed not just to the poor but to the vast middle class of our country. He was the first to call for a new culture of responsibility, not just among those dependent on benefits but on those in our boardrooms and among our nation's shareholders. He was the first to highlight both the moral evil and the economic stupidity of runaway executive pay.

Such far-reaching calls for change scare people.

Um - did I miss something? Which far-reaching calls for change? The only specific call for change Stears mentions is Ed's call for a "culture of responsibility". Whooo, scary! But seriously: there is something objectionable about the tone of this piece, and Miliband should be careful not to emulate it. It's deeply patronising to argue that the only reason Miliband's message isn't being hailed is that it's too scary, or that everyone is confused and only Stears and Miliband are seeing things clearly, patiently waiting for the rest of the class to catch up.

It isn't just patronising. It is risibly - and, for Miliband, dangerously - self-deluding.

iowans have spoken

Mitt Romney makes his victory speech, with his perfect family alongside. (Photo: Jim Wilson/NYT)

What did they tell us? I think they told us that Mitt Romney is going to be the nominee. 

It may only have been by 8 votes (8 votes!) and it may have been with the lowest percentage (24.6%) of any GOP Iowa winner for, oh, ever, but Romney has ground out a victory in a state where, up until a couple of months ago, few thought he would even be competitive.

Much of the coverage and all of the excitement today is around Rick Santorum, who won a fine reward after a year of dogged pursuit from the back of the pack (to flesh out your impression of Santorum a little read this by David Brooks; also, every time you hear him being described as an 'Evangelical Christian' in the British media, shout CATHOLIC with me).

But Santorum is really another sideshow surge, in the tradition of Perry, Cain, and Gingrich; he just happened to surge at the right time. In short order he will follow the trajectory they have established, cresting, sliding and eventually falling out. He hasn't been under real heat yet. He will get some now, from the press, and from the Romney machine. I think he will melt. Romney has vastly more money, organisation and establishment support. He put them  to excellent use in Iowa, as Gingrich knows, to his chagrin. Santorum is no Obama '08. He's not even Huckabee.

Meanwhile, Romney has knocked out his other opponents. Rick Perry has already intimated, probably with some relief, that he's headed back to Texas for good. Ron Paul missed his biggest chance to make a real impact on the race. Bachmann is done. Gingrich is staying in but is fatally wounded (as one commentator remarked, a wounded Newt is a dangerous Newt; he will be throwing petrol bombs at Romney - whom he despises - from the sidelines).

Romney will take a bit of a hammering over the next few weeks as everyone - his opponents, the media - test his front-runner status to destruction. But I think he'll survive it and win the nomination, despite the fierce indifference of his party, who will feel a sense of anti-climax tinged with self-loathing when he stands up to accept their acclaim at the convention.

One final note. Obama won 25,000 votes from Iowan Dems last night. That's about a fifth of the total that voted for a Republican; not bad for an incumbent president with no candidate standing against him. It was a show of organisational strength that will have even Romney-supporting Republicans worrying anew about the lack of grass-roots enthusiasm for their man.