Here's a nifty tool from LA Times.com that lets you play with electoral votes. I've set the first linked scenario to demonstrate what I think the election will come down to, and the second to show what I think will happen.
You'll notice that I gave Obama Kansas, Virginia and Colorado. His polling in Kansas since the primary, as well as his relationship with Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) I think will deliver him Kansas' electoral votes. There is something similar happening in Virginia, where Obama ally Jim Webb (D-VA) is one of the most popular politicians in the state.
As for Colorado, I think hosting the Democratic convention will rally the state's independents, who have voted with their Democratic neighbors to elect not only a Democratic governor, but a Democratic majority in the state's assembly.
I think the election will basically come down to Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. Whoever can win two of those three will win the White House. I'm thinking Obama might lose New Hampshire's old 2000 McCain votes, but I can see him rallying (and registering) pocketbook voters in Michigan and Pennsylvania to secure both states. (Actually, Obama could even afford to lose Kansas, Colorado AND New Hampshire if he can carry Michigan, which makes the state even more important than the others.)
We'll see if I'm right in November.
21 June 2008
15 June 2008
The Treaty of Lisbon: A Good First Step
This November, the United States will elect its 44th President in what many American newsmen and politicos are calling the world’s most important election in at least forty years.
Yet while the American news outlets and spin-doctors are keen to loop that sound-byte, what seems to be lost is that the American election this November may not even be the most important electoral contest this year.
Indeed, before veiling itself with red white and blue ignorance, insular America ought to take a quick glance across the pond to catch a glimpse of the future. I am referring to the Treaty of Lisbon that has been floating around the European Union for the past several years and now nears electoral ratification.
In short, the treaty effectively federalizes and streamlines the current EU into a sturdy state with a single legal personality (most noticeably, with a single head executive). Within its articles, the treaty not only outlines the world’s first supranational federal constitution, it redefines and expands its interpretation of citizenship and rights to reflect more cosmopolitan and universalistic norms (as well as affirming a commitment to combating climate change).
The implications of this treaty are enormously historic and signal a developing paradigm shift in international politics.
Most importantly, the supranational federalization of what have been merely financially allied countries into a single streamlined legal and political entity sets into motion a project that many liberal political thinkers, beginning perhaps with Immanuel Kant, have been tinkering with for over two-hundred years: a post-national world government.
The ability for the EU to cooperate and institutionalize a regional government may very well lay the foundation for a future society which unites humanity under a single government that does not start wars, pillage natural resources, or under allocate important public services, like education, healthcare, and security.
Maybe just as important as these structural developments are the substantive ones. For over two hundred years, the sorts of rights and interpretations of citizenship among Western nations have not changed much. So called “natural rights” have expanded over time to grant freedoms and protections to more demographic groups, but little development has come in the form of new freedoms or protections.
A European Constitution, as outlined by the Treaty of Lisbon, would do just that. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (a structural equivalent to the US Bill of Rights) is organized into 6 titles: dignity, freedoms, equality, solidarity, citizens' rights, and justice.
In its preamble, the Charter asserts, “the peoples of Europe, in creating an ever closer union among them, are resolved to share a peaceful future based on common values. This Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity.”
In addition to traditional provisions, the Charter includes bans on torture, death penalties, human cloning and eugenics, and protects rights to employment, healthcare, and the right to receive a free professional education.
The treaty ultimately foresees and addresses the pain of a more mature humanity that yearns for a higher standard of life that can be sustained for generations. It projects a cooperative society of free and equal individuals engaged and bound by a rich social fabric.
Yet despite the lofty intellectual and idealistic tenets of the treaty, the immediate and long-run practical ramifications of its ratification are equally critical.
In the past forty years, it is indisputable that the United States has been squandering its finances, combat forces, international respect and global influence by arrogantly, and often ignorantly, pursuing imperial interests and world policework under the exposed facade of “nation building” and the ever Wilsonian self-righteous decree of “making the world safe for democracy.” The U.S is just now feeling the consequences of these years of irresponsible domestic neglect as it is, once again, mired in a superfluous trillion dollar war.
The EU, as projected by Lisbon, will erode this exclusively American idea that the United States is the world’s “sole superpower” and thus somehow obligated to impose its often misguided will upon others.
To that extent, a strong EU would politically enable Washington to redirect the endless flow of tax dollars from bloated-beyond-necessity defense budgets to, perhaps, pay down the national debt, or fund education and other greatly deprived domestic programs.
Indeed, policymakers in the US may even feel pressured to compete with the solidified EU by investing in infrastructure, higher education and research and development—all the while clinging (albeit desperately) to its title of “global leader.”
In the long run, a strong, vibrant and united European Union seems poised to lead the world into the 21st century and a new cosmopolitan world order, as seem to be evidenced by the relatively radical provisions of its proto-constitution.
The United States, having held this role for much of the 20th century, will most assuredly be loathe to yield the status so passively. American leaders, realizing this, will then need to decide whether the US will lead or be lead into the 21st century.
The choice will be simple, and the US will agree to curb its imperial march and modify its domestic practices so as to demonstrate an equally exemplary standard to the rest of the world.
So as we celebrate our national independence this summer, we may not find ourselves cosmopolitan citizens of a post-national government any time soon (especially after the failed Irish referendum), but with a ratified Treaty of Lisbon, we may very well be taking another step towards realizing the lofty ideals for which we all yearn, and upon which this nation was founded.
Yet while the American news outlets and spin-doctors are keen to loop that sound-byte, what seems to be lost is that the American election this November may not even be the most important electoral contest this year.
Indeed, before veiling itself with red white and blue ignorance, insular America ought to take a quick glance across the pond to catch a glimpse of the future. I am referring to the Treaty of Lisbon that has been floating around the European Union for the past several years and now nears electoral ratification.
In short, the treaty effectively federalizes and streamlines the current EU into a sturdy state with a single legal personality (most noticeably, with a single head executive). Within its articles, the treaty not only outlines the world’s first supranational federal constitution, it redefines and expands its interpretation of citizenship and rights to reflect more cosmopolitan and universalistic norms (as well as affirming a commitment to combating climate change).
The implications of this treaty are enormously historic and signal a developing paradigm shift in international politics.
Most importantly, the supranational federalization of what have been merely financially allied countries into a single streamlined legal and political entity sets into motion a project that many liberal political thinkers, beginning perhaps with Immanuel Kant, have been tinkering with for over two-hundred years: a post-national world government.
The ability for the EU to cooperate and institutionalize a regional government may very well lay the foundation for a future society which unites humanity under a single government that does not start wars, pillage natural resources, or under allocate important public services, like education, healthcare, and security.
Maybe just as important as these structural developments are the substantive ones. For over two hundred years, the sorts of rights and interpretations of citizenship among Western nations have not changed much. So called “natural rights” have expanded over time to grant freedoms and protections to more demographic groups, but little development has come in the form of new freedoms or protections.
A European Constitution, as outlined by the Treaty of Lisbon, would do just that. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (a structural equivalent to the US Bill of Rights) is organized into 6 titles: dignity, freedoms, equality, solidarity, citizens' rights, and justice.
In its preamble, the Charter asserts, “the peoples of Europe, in creating an ever closer union among them, are resolved to share a peaceful future based on common values. This Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity.”
In addition to traditional provisions, the Charter includes bans on torture, death penalties, human cloning and eugenics, and protects rights to employment, healthcare, and the right to receive a free professional education.
The treaty ultimately foresees and addresses the pain of a more mature humanity that yearns for a higher standard of life that can be sustained for generations. It projects a cooperative society of free and equal individuals engaged and bound by a rich social fabric.
Yet despite the lofty intellectual and idealistic tenets of the treaty, the immediate and long-run practical ramifications of its ratification are equally critical.
In the past forty years, it is indisputable that the United States has been squandering its finances, combat forces, international respect and global influence by arrogantly, and often ignorantly, pursuing imperial interests and world policework under the exposed facade of “nation building” and the ever Wilsonian self-righteous decree of “making the world safe for democracy.” The U.S is just now feeling the consequences of these years of irresponsible domestic neglect as it is, once again, mired in a superfluous trillion dollar war.
The EU, as projected by Lisbon, will erode this exclusively American idea that the United States is the world’s “sole superpower” and thus somehow obligated to impose its often misguided will upon others.
To that extent, a strong EU would politically enable Washington to redirect the endless flow of tax dollars from bloated-beyond-necessity defense budgets to, perhaps, pay down the national debt, or fund education and other greatly deprived domestic programs.
Indeed, policymakers in the US may even feel pressured to compete with the solidified EU by investing in infrastructure, higher education and research and development—all the while clinging (albeit desperately) to its title of “global leader.”
In the long run, a strong, vibrant and united European Union seems poised to lead the world into the 21st century and a new cosmopolitan world order, as seem to be evidenced by the relatively radical provisions of its proto-constitution.
The United States, having held this role for much of the 20th century, will most assuredly be loathe to yield the status so passively. American leaders, realizing this, will then need to decide whether the US will lead or be lead into the 21st century.
The choice will be simple, and the US will agree to curb its imperial march and modify its domestic practices so as to demonstrate an equally exemplary standard to the rest of the world.
So as we celebrate our national independence this summer, we may not find ourselves cosmopolitan citizens of a post-national government any time soon (especially after the failed Irish referendum), but with a ratified Treaty of Lisbon, we may very well be taking another step towards realizing the lofty ideals for which we all yearn, and upon which this nation was founded.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
