Back in the primary, pundits and critics wondered how Obama could deliver change while keeping his promise of bipartisanship, for the Republicans would surely block progressive initiatives. As Obama selects experienced insiders for his administration, pundits and critics now wonder how he can deliver change with a staff whose ideas have shaped past administrative policies. Some assume that Obama will not try or will not be able to fulfill his promises of change. Others assume that to Obama, "change" is an empty word, useful for getting elected but irrelevant to his governing plans.

So where is the change? When Obama spoke of change during the campaign, he rarely referred to radical progressive policy changes. Rather, as was apparent in his original Blueprint for Change, he repeatedly promised two changes from "politics as usual":

1. Bipartisan unity
2. Good government practices, particularly government transparency

If we understand "change" in that context, then Obama's plans really do differ from the past two administrations, both of which were characterized by opaque, top-down decision-making and fierce partisan battles. Moreover, such changes are not only consistent with good bipartisan relations and experienced counsel; they depend on them.

As Obama fills out his administration, it has taken a familiar form. The Obama administration looks very much like the Obama campaign: practical, non-ideological, and competent. Like a well-designed engine, it is meant to be smooth, quiet, efficient, and effective. Meticulous vetting procedures and full disclosure of conflicts of interest will help avoid the controversies and cover-ups that dogged the Clinton administration. An emphasis on competence over loyalty and ideology will help avoid the Iraq-Katrina-Medicare bungles of the Bush administration.

In short, Obama intends to run technocracy, a government characterized not by ideology, partisanship, or politics, but by practical effectiveness, a government that the American people, both red and blue alike, can believe in. And that would most certainly be a change.

Whether he'll be able to deliver such change remains to be seen, but he's off to a good start.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cross posted at dagblog.com, a blog we can believe in. If you haven't read Articleman's personal reflections on Obama's election, I highly recommend it.

Over at dagblog, TPMer Donal recently posted the news that a South Korea company is pursuing a deal with Madagascar to lease almost half of its currently farmed land for 99 years in order to grow crops for feed and biofuel. Chinese companies have been doing similar deals with a number of African countries but at much smaller scales. Trade deals between multinational corporations and third-world countries have been sources of controversy since the 70's, but the history of such arrangements stretches back to the Dutch East and West Indies Companies, established in the 17th century. New York City itself was founded as New Amsterdam by the Dutch West Indies Company in order to facilitate the purchase of natural resources, including fur and tobacco, from an as yet undeveloped America.

If we want to positively influence global trade policy, we need to abandon utopic dreams of happy, harmonious global markets as well idealized notions of plucky, bootstrapping third world nations. If we set realistic goals based on historical precedents, we can better evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of specific trade deals by determining whether they help or hinder the achievement of such goals. Fortunately, there are plenty of historical precedents, starting with our own country, which began as an agrarian exporter of natural resources and suffered through class conflict, political corruption, and labor exploitation before becoming a rich nation with a (formerly) healthy middle class. But more useful precedents are the contemporary ones, former third world countries like South Korea, China, Brazil, Chile, India, Malaysia, and Thailand, the so-called newly industrialized countries (NIC's), whose citizens have moved from subsistence to relative wealth and which have now reached the point of establishing their own multinational corporations. These are not perfect nations. They suffer from political repression, class differences, corruption, and environmental deprivation. Except for South Korea, none of them can yet be considered first world nations. But they are in a different world entirely from places like Madagascar, Congo, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Somalia, North Korea, Burma/Myanmar, and Bangladesh. Third world countries will not leap suddenly into the first world. It has never happened; there is no precedent. But we have seen countries move from third world, to NIC, to first world, often over centuries, occasionally over decades. So as a first step, let's focus on helping third world countries become NIC's.

No country has ever become an NIC on its own. Particularly in the last century, the NIC's growth has come almost exclusively from international trade. Is there no other way? There are other ideas but no other precedents, and those who base their ideas on theories without precedents run a dangerous gambit. While it's not impossible that some new strategy could accomplish something entirely new, we have seen many unproven economic theories leave nations in ruins. China's "Great Leap Forward," based on unproven Communist principles, caused an estimated 20 to 43 million deaths by starvation. So let us base our ideas on proven models. Third world countries must trade.

But that doesn't mean that every trade deal is inherently good. African nations have been "selling" their natural resources to Europe for centuries, but few if any can be called NIC's. It's not that African nations have been ripped off. Trade does not work on the charity principle. Corporations seek the best deals that they can. While some nations may negotiate poorly, and corrupt leaders may offer deals that help them personally while robbing the nation, these differences are always relative to going the rate. Nor is the problem that the proceeds do not go directly to the poor. The NIC's suffer from massive class imbalances with the bulk of benefits going to elites. But these countries are gradually developing middle classes, and standards of living for the poor of such nations have been gradually improving. The difference between productive deals and unproductive deals is that in the former case, the profit is put to work through investment in local companies. Those companies may be owned by elites who live relatively lavish lifestyles, but they grow. As they grow, they hire more people, both laborers and managers. They send taxes to their governments which invest in infrastructure that benefits the poor and, more importantly for the long run, encourage more growth. The growth thus builds on itself, encouraging yet more investment, and suddenly a once poor nation becomes an international dynamo, and its companies become multinational corporations in their own right. By contrast, in unproductive deals, the profits are wasted on lavish palaces and luxury cars for corrupt leaders and their supporters. Much of the money immediately leaves the country through purchases of expensive imports.

In light of these considerations, let's turn to the deal between Korea and Madagascar. First, this is a massive deal for Madagascar, which has a GDP of only $17B. It's expected to cost Daewoo Logistics $6B over 20 years for the lease plus infrastructure investments, including port, roads, irrigation, power plants, schools, and hospitals. Madagascar's GDP is only $17B. Second, Madagascar has been a relatively stable democracy since independence in 1960. It's smack in the middle of international democracy, press freedom, and corruption rankings, above Thailand, Georgia, and Egypt, though the corruption is slightly worse than the last two. However, the deal appears to be with four regional governments, about which we have little information, not the national government. There are of course questions about what will happen to those who currently farm the land. There are apparently plans to bring in laborers from South Africa, which would shut out local and send most of the wages out of the country. If all the crops are exported, the cost of food will surely go up for Malagasies, negating any benefits to the poor from the capital influx. The deal seems to be for "currently farmed" land although some reports list "arable" land. Even if it is the former, the increased scarcity will likely cause new farmland to be developed, which would cause deforestation, as Donal has noted.

But most importantly, while the infrastructure investment is good for Madagascar, it's not clear that the deal will do much of anything to fertilize local companies. The reports hint that the operation will be very top down. Daewoo will not be hiring local contractors or managers. They will run the show from top to bottom much as multinational oil and mineral companies do and as colonials have done in the past. The leases will be paid directly to regional Malagasy governments and most likely be squandered through corruption. Finally, should Madagascar manage to break into NIC ranks in the next century, the 99-year lease will become an increasing drag, depriving the nation of the resources and land that it will need to develop.

Thus, despite some benefits for a nation that may be less corrupt than its neighbors, this deal truly appears to be an example of 21st century nouveau colonialism and likely to hinder rather than help Madagascar's development. Moreover, it's a disturbing trend, made worse in the case of similar deals between less accountable Chinese corporations and more corrupt African nations.

Update: Donal has informed me that his source was TPMer Hugh Bartling's blog

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cross posted at dagblog.com, where we are in negotiations to purchase Liberia.

Ignoring the personal attributes that the pundits used to measure McCain's chances, I proposed an alternative thesis: "a well-run primary campaign augurs a well-run general election campaign, and the inverse, a poorly-run primary campaign augurs a poorly-run general election campaign." As McCain's media popularity and perceptions of his honesty veered wildly, as unpredictable events changed voters' priorities, as independents swayed to and fro, one factor remained constant: John McCain ran an unfocused, cash poor, badly planned, bitterly divided campaign. Obama, by contrast, ran an organized, disciplined, creative, well-funded, brilliant campaign, just as he did in the primary. The next time I attempt to gauge a candidate's electability, I know where to look.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cross posted at dagblog.com, where the bloggers can see the future. Except that Articleman was wrong about Georgia.

As has been well documented at TPM, John McCain ran a deceitful, jingoistic, superficial, nationalistic campaign which grew ever more incendiary towards the end. But there is one place that McCain did not go. He did not ultimately base his campaign on racial polarization. Yes, there were a few subtle coded messages, and McCain's attacks on Obama's patriotism harbored a racial undercurrent. Yes, there were Muslim rumors and Rev. Wright ads by third parties that McCain failed to publicly deplore. But in the end, McCain did not adopt a full-throated race-baiting strategy that probably would have helped his campaign.

John McCain did not go after Obama's association with Farrakhan. Only last week, Dr. Vibert White Jr., a former Farrakhan deputy, asserted that Obama's ties to Farrakhan were close, insisting that there was "an open line between them." This news was not widely covered by the mainstream media. Why not? The media did not hesitate to raise Farrakhan's name in the past; Tim Russert even challenged Obama to denounce Farrakhan on national television. Had the McCain campaign made an issue of the White's claims, the media would have dutifully covered the story, as they covered such stories in the past, claiming that it was newsworthy because McCain had made an issue of it. Associating Obama with Farrakhan would also have bolstered McCain's attacks on Obama's patriotism and added anti-semitism into the mix. Had the news about Farrakhan just before the election been more widely played, it would likely have cut into Obama's support just as the Wright news did in the primary. Why Ayers and not Farrakhan? Once again, I can only conclude that McCain held back because Farrakhan is black and associated with black nationalism.

John McCain did not attack Obama for being soft on crime, reliving Bush Sr.'s Willie Horton moment. He did not emphasize Democratic support for welfare benefits for poor black women. He did not embrace Confederate themes or coded "states rights." He did not try to marginalize Obama as a "black" candidate or insinuate that Obama would represent "special interests" at the expense of "ordinary" people. The New York Times reports that McCain was "devastated" when John Lewis, whom he admired, compared him to George Wallace. Newsweek reports that the campaign rejected ads that would inflame racial tensions:

[McCain] had set firm boundaries: no Jeremiah Wright; no attacking Michelle Obama; no attacking Obama for not serving in the military...Schmidt vetoed ads suggesting that Obama was soft on crime (no Willie Hortons). And before word even got to McCain, Schmidt and Salter scuttled a "celebrity" ad of Obama dancing with talk-show host Ellen DeGeneres (the sight of a black man dancing with a lesbian was deemed too provocative).

Perhaps these reports are simply campaign spin, but they fit the known facts. The campaign did not make an issue of Wright, Michelle, Obama's lack of military service, or crime policy and did not cut an ad showing Obama dancing with DeGeneres, which certainly would have fit in well with the celebrity attacks. After Lewis's criticism, McCain did tone down the rallies and rebuked his own supporters on a few occasions.

One might argue that McCain avoided racially polarizing attacks purely out of self-interest in order to avoid being accused of racism and alienating voters. But there are many ways to subtly exploit racial divisions without engaging in behavior that is unambiguously racist. That is the point of coded attacks that Republican politicians have often used effectively, from Reagan's states rights to Willie Horton to the "call me" ad used against Harold Ford. While such tactics might have turned off some voters, few of those were likely to vote for McCain in any case, and it would have been difficult for the Obama campaign to accuse McCain of race baiting without emphasizing Obama's skin color which the campaign clearly wished to avoid.

One might also argue that congratulating McCain for not exploiting race is faint praise, like complimenting someone for not cheating on a test. But this is politics we're talking about and Republican politics at that. Ever since Strom Thurmond and, more prominently, Richard Nixon, Republican politicians at every level have brazenly exploited race prejudices to their advantage. McCain explicitly broke from this tradition to his campaign's detriment. In a school full of cheaters, the one does not cheat does indeed deserve praise.

Some will doubt these arguments because they believe that John McCain has no scruples and that if he didn't focus on Wright and Farrakhan, it can only be because he saw political advantage in not doing so. But while McCain certainly does not have the level of integrity that the media once praised him for, that does not mean that he has none. Most people, however unscrupulous, have lines that they do not cross. And while I'm sure that the Obama campaign was prepared to respond to Wright and Farrakhan attacks, it's difficult to imagine that the campaign strategists wanted these subjects raised. So John McCain gave the Obama campaign exactly what it wanted--an election in which Obama's race was minimized. To project an unspecified political motivation behind this move is to show a lack of intellectual charity towards a man who, when it came to race, did exactly what he said he would do.

When I think back to how prominently the issue of race figured in the Democratic primary and how much worse I feared the polarization would be in the general election, it is amazing to me how small a part it played in the end. Other than a brief tempest surrounding the celebrity ads, race was absent from the political dialogue between Obama and McCain. John McCain could have made it otherwise. Other Republicans have done so, and his campaign would have benefited. He chose restraint. It is for that reason that in his concession speech, McCain was able to graciously praise the historic election of our first African-American president without dishonesty or hypocrisy. I credit him for it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cross posted at dagblog.com, where this is the first nice thing we've ever said about John McCain.

Sometimes the Decision may seem inconsequential, a choice between equals, but the consequences of our Decisions inevitably prove that the differences were starker than we imagined. The authority that we grant to these individuals is of such magnitude that even the small choices that they make--the words they choose, the people they hire, the favors they grant, the priorities that they pursue--have great consequences. However much Mr. Bush seemed like Mr. Gore eight years ago, he has led the nation down a very different path than Mr. Gore would have done. The difference cannot be measured by any single policy or historical event. It consists in the accumulation of policies, priorities, appointments, speeches, favors, initiatives, and other actions that Mr. Bush has executed under the authority that we have twice granted him.

The Decision is always a gamble. We can never know how a person will exercise the authority we grant to him or her. The best candidate may be the worst president. Like poker players, we can only make educated choices based on the hands we've been dealt. A low pair will sometimes win; four aces will sometimes lose. But we can play the odds, and we can maximize our chances. What we must not do, if we value the welfare our nation, is to Decide for the wrong reasons. We are not choosing a policy, a friend, a hero, a judge, or an entertainer. We are choosing to hire someone who will make innumerable decisions on our behalf, someone who will affect the lives of billions of people in our country and around the world.

We can perhaps forgive ourselves for the poor choice that we made in 2000. True, we underestimated the consequences of that Decision, but we had little way of knowing that the man we selected would lead us into a disastrous war, cripple the effectiveness of our government, and enact policies that would so drastically undermine our interests and welfare. But we have no excuse for 2004. Knowing full well what Mr. Bush had wrought in his first four years, we extended his authority for another four. We chose him because we liked him more than Mr. Kerry, because he said the words that we wanted to hear, because we allowed him to exploit our fears. We have paid dearly for that Decision and will continue to pay for years to come.

This year, we must do better. We cannot know for certain whether Mr. Obama will be a more capable leader than Mr. McCain, but we have many reasons to believe so. Over the course of his career and in this campaign, Mr. Obama has demonstrated solid temperament, sound judgment, a deep and nuanced intelligence, strong leadership, and broad appeal. He aims to right the errors produced by Mr. Bush's incompetence: the imprudent war that killed millions, cost trillions, and produced little; the tax cuts for the richest among us that have exploded our deficit and amplified the economic inequalities that divide us; the politicization of our government; and the secrecy meant to hide choices we abhor.

In contrast to Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain has been erratic, often confused, prone to anger, and out of touch. The policies that he has favored committed us to the terrible war, bankrupt our government, and undermined the "fundamentals" of our economy. The people that he has hired, most notably Ms. Palin, have exhibited notable incompetence. He has belied a reputation for integrity and substance with a campaign that has exploited our worst instincts and sought to distract us from matters of importance.

It is time to Decide. We can be guided by our fears and prejudices and bet the weak hand. Or we can place our bet on the man who has given us so many reasons to believe that he will work effectively on our behalf to improve our lives and make our nation greater. We the People are responsible for our future. We are the Deciders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those in the New York area, I will be hosting an election party at the Village Lantern, 167 Bleecker at Sullivan St. In D.C., TPM member IIOOII will be watching the results at Bar 1331 on Pennsylvania Ave.. For those of you who are watching from home, tune in to dagblog.com to see Articleman live blog the results with his usual wit and insight.