Back in the 90s, I interviewed a Hong Kong financier named Philip Tose for Asia Inc magazine. Tose—whose Peregrine Investment Holdings later went belly up amid charges of incompetence and negligence—had recently caused something of a stir in the local press by saying that “Western-style political democracy” was the root cause of many of the West’s problems, and that what Asia needed was “economic democracy,” and not lectures from “do-gooders.” In my interview, I asked Tose to expand on his statement, and he grudgingly admitted that “there are many great things that come out of democracy,” and that democracy is a “wonderful concept.” However, he insisted that, for the emerging economies of Asia, “most people are not interested” in voting, and that “the man in the street is more interested in a dollar in his pocket than a ballot slip.”

Tose’s ideas were certainly consistent with the values held by many Asian governments, including those of China and Singapore. And Asia Inc itself often flew the banner of “economic democracy,” talking up the reforms of leaders such as Deng Xiaoping, who famously declared that “to get rich is glorious.” Occasionally, we did hint at support for something more universal; at one point Sondhi Limthongkul, our Editor-in-Chief, praised the reforms of “enlightened capitalism” in his monthly column; the article linked from the column criticized Philippine oligarchs who wrecked the country with “disastrous political and economic decisions designed to benefit themselves.”

I was reminded of my interview with Tose—and of Khun Sondhi’s limited support for political democracy—by recent events in Thailand. For the third time in as many years, the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) has succeeded in bringing down the country’s prime minister. I’m not an astute enough student of Thai politics to say whether or not elected prime minister Somchai Wongsawat deserved to be ousted. However, I do find some of the statements of my old boss—and current PAD leader—Sondhi Limthongkul, to be an unfortunate echo of Tose’s long-ago comments. Sondhi, who also helped overthrow elected prime ministers Thaksin Shinawatra and Samak Sundaravej, has stated publicly that, despite his organization’s name, “representative democracy is not suitable for Thailand.” Instead, he proposes a model in which the majority of the country’s parliament would be appointed officials, leaving a mere 30% to be elected. “Let’s not get democracy as you would go to McDonalds and order a hamburger, because democracy is still a Western export,” he has said in defense of his proposal.

I’m sorry, Khun Sondhi, but you’re wrong, just as Philip Tose was in 1992. Yes, democracy can be imperfect and messy, and can occasionally lead to the election of popular but corrupt officials. And even the most open and democratic nations have had to deal with electoral fraud and its consequences. But a democracy can also provide fair recourse; Thailand’s two most recent prime ministers were ousted not by PAD’s mass rallies, but by the county’s courts and judges. And if the judges and courts were influenced by PAD, that’s also a tribute to the democratic rights of free speech and assembly enjoyed in Thailand. As Aung San Suu Kyi—probably Asia’s best-known democracy activist—has said, the “struggle for democracy is a struggle for our everyday life.” On “economic democracy,” she has said that the idea that “man is primarily an economic animal interested only in his material well-being” is “too narrow a view of a species which has produced numberless brave men and women who are prepared to undergo relentless persecution to uphold deeply held beliefs and principles.”

That said, I do agree with another prominent Asian supporter of democracy, Gandhi, who said that “the spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to come from within.” In that regard, Sondhi is right; imported or imposed democracy is doomed to failure. But Thailand’s democracy does come from within. The fact that the country has continued to embrace the electoral process in the face of decades of coups, corruption and failed governments is proof of that. The Thai people—or at least most of them—have embraced democracy. I hope that my old boss someday does the same.

Now that California has made it a crime for anyone but heterosexual couples to get married, I think it’s time to forever bury the idea of state-sanctioned gay marriage. And, for that matter, state-sanctioned straight marriage as well. In fact, I believe we should get the government out of the marriage business entirely. Because, the fact is, as long as the government is involved in marriage, it will be involved in no-win disputes over the “sanctity” of that institution. And the idea of legislating “sanctity” is simply not the role our government should be playing. It’s a violation of our long-held principles of separation of church and state, and plays into the hands of narrow-minded, divisive forces that use the definition of marriage as a wedge, culture-war issue. Instead of “marrying” people, the government should instead issue open-to-all civil union certificates, which will have the same legal standing as today’s marriage licenses. Straight or gay, you’d get the same piece of paper and most importantly, the same rights. Still want to “sanctify” your relationship? Go to a church, temple, mosque, shrine or whatever institution you feel comfortable working with.

This isn’t a far-fetched or radical idea. In August, moderate minister Oliver Thomas proposed this very concept in a USA Today column:

Given the state’s legitimate, though limited, interest here, shouldn’t all couples — be they gay or straight — be given the same civil contract with all the attendant legal rights and obligations? After all, legally committed couples provide the same financial and familial stability, be they gay or straight. In short, everyone who wishes to marry could be given a civil union agreement from the state. Whether a couple goes on to have a wedding ceremony would be up to them and their church. But the thing that would be enforced (or dissolved) by the state would be the civil agreement.

As a married straight man, I would gladly trade my marriage license for a civil union certificate if it would further the causes of equality, justice and separation of church and state. My marriage, after all, was performed by a rabbi, and in terms of “sanctity,” that matters far more than a government-issued piece of paper. And in terms of my feelings for my wife, I don’t need any government involvement to be “married.”

So, let’s end this debate once and for all. Civil unions can provide a common legal framework for all couples, and religious groups can marry—or not—whoever they want, based on their own beliefs.

One reason I haven’t been blogging much lately is that I’ve been running phone banks in what little spare time I have. And if I didn’t say that here, you could have found out about it here. In the words of Kos diarist Mr. Jordan:

This was my first effort in any GOTV or Obama-related campaign activity (in this case, unofficial), and I enjoyed not just being able to help but the atmosphere among the small group—the same positive feelings that have been felt by millions across the country. I don’t have a car and took the train nearby, but others were kind enough to give me a ride from the local train station to the phonebank and also a ride back home (thanks!).

I appreciate Jordan’s kind comments, though he didn’t tell me he’d be blogging the phonebank. But that’s beside the point. His post is a reminder that, in the Web 2.0 world, you’re always on the record. True, Jordan didn’t ID me, instead calling me “the fellow who ran the phonebank.” But since the folks I was working for have already seen the post, I figured I should out myself here. I’m just glad I said no when Jordan asked if he could take my picture!

 
First time I saw this, I assumed it had to be Photoshopped. Nope. Oh, and Marc Ambinder’s having a caption contest.

See Part 1 and Part 2 here.

Throughout this campaign, it’s been seen as something of a truism that Senator Barack Obama is weak among white working-class males. Certainly Hillary Clinton was able to appeal more directly to that group, and the McCain-Palin ticket has continued to exploit that weakness. And in my brief canvassing experience, it became pretty clear that Obama’s support among this demo is pretty limited. In poor neighborhoods, Obama support was robust; in rich and upper-middle-class ones, it seemed almost a fifty-fifty split between the two parties. In working- and lower-middle-class areas, McCain support seemed much more robust, based on yard signs and other visible indicators. Obama may have made some inroads into this sector, but he’s still struggling.

At this point, I don’t think too many minds are going to be changed. And McCain, in his “Joe the Plumber” approach is clearly—and I suspect successfully—appealing to this group. And one troubling (for Obama) point about “Joe,” is that he represents a much broader definition of “white working class male.” Joe seemed to admit to making close to $250K, putting him in a pretty nice income bracket, especially for Ohio. When McCain sarcastically said, “Congratulations, Joe, you’re rich,” he could have been playing it straight. Of course, reality is much more complicated; Joe now claims to be earning much less. However, by implying that you could make $250K and still be “working class,” McCain has embraced a whole group of largely ignored voters: successful whites who don’t think of themselves as rich. These are the folks who started out in Brooklyn apartments and now have big houses on Staten Island; they’re the ones who rose through the ranks in fields like contracting, sales and, yes, plumbing, and now do very well, but still think of themselves as working class, based on their roots and career paths. 

The good news for Obama, if Staten Island is any indication, is that this group already votes Republican; they were never in contention to begin with. The bad news is that, even when Obama’s policies might actually help them, they’re still likely to vote for McCain no matter what. Just look at Joe, himself. In an interview this morning, he admitted to making much less than $250K, which means he’d actually benefit from Obama’s tax plan. Yet, while refusing to say who he’d vote for, he praised McCain as having some “real solid points” in the debate, and called Obama’s health-care plan “one more step toward socialism.” Joe may be officially undecided, but his real intentions are clear. He falls into the faux undecided camp that I discussed earlier. Obama won’t win him over, and at this point, I suspect he’s going to stop trying. The non-union white-working class will vote Republican, if they vote at all, and Obama will need to make up those votes with other groups.

Much has been made about the differences between Barack Obama and John McCain when it comes to technology. And most of the comparisons are pretty accurate. While McCain boasts that he doesn’t use email, Obama has an iPhone app, a highly sophisticated web site, and even does in-game campaign ads. The latest twist from Obama has to be one of the most intriguing: social campaign contributions.

What the Obama campaign has done is a twist on the traditional “matching donor” model, where contributors are encouraged to support a cause with the lure of a “match” -– typically from a well-heeled individual or foundation—that essentially doubles the donor’s impact. In the Obama model, however, recurring donors are encouraged to contribute a little more, as the matchers for new donors. The social element? You can write a personalized email to your matchee, and that donor can then respond to you. The communication can be anonymous, or you can swap email addresses and take the conversation out of Obamaland and into the real world.

I don’t know how many new donors the matching campaign is attracting, but I know it got me—and “Richard P. in Silver Springs, MD”—to fork over a few extra bucks. If the model works, I can see other causes adopting it—and can see donors forming new networks around their favorite causes.

  This is the second installment of my “Five things I learned on the trail” series. You can read the first part here.

2. Students and poor voters are underrepresented in polls.
It probably comes as no surprise that polls underrepresent college students and poor voters. Several factors cause these population groups to be undercounted, including their lack of landlines, the transient nature of their housing and, in some cases, a distrust of phone calls from unfamiliar numbers. And I believe that the number of “missing” students and poor voters is significantly higher than pollsters have estimated. Let’s take college students. According to some studies, cell phone penetration among college students is close to 90% (I actually think it’s closer to 100%, but let’s go with published studies for now). And about a third of 18-29 year-olds only use cell phones and VoIP for their calls. According to the U.S. census bureau, there are close to 30 million 18-24 year-olds in the U.S., so if we assume a third of them don’t have landlines, that’s 10 million missing voting-age Americans. Poor voters are also less likely to have landlines; one study estimated that 16% of those with incomes under $15,000 per year were cell-phone only, versus 9% of the general population.

So, based solely on the cell-phone factor, it seems likely that a significant number of young and poor voters are being undercounted by pollsters. And even if pollsters are weighting their results to compensate, there’s no way to know whether they’re doing so in a way that accurately represents this population. The Obama campaign has been very successful in its efforts to register younger and poorer voters – which I saw clear evidence of in some of the neighborhoods I visited when canvassing, not to mention the sheer number of people at the Obama rally I attended, which took place in a neighborhood that was both somewhat economically depressed and adjacent to a major college. Obviously, I can’t prove that the undercounted poor and young voters are going to break for Obama, but I think it’s extremely likely. And these voters may more than compensate for the aversive racists, who may be inflating the number of “undecided” voters.

However, the impact of these voters is far from assured. For one thing, some first-time voters may be deterred from voting if they feel an Obama victory is assured. Another, perhaps bigger, factor, could be voter suppression and intimidation, something which media reports indicate is already taking place. Many such efforts target the poor, including those who may have lost their homes in the foreclosure crisis. Journalist Greg Palast and activist Robert Kennedy Jr. have studied the issue, and believe voter suppression, intimidation and other shady tactics could disenfranchise millions of voters. Fortunately, the Obama campaign seems far better prepared for this than either Kerry or Gore were, but that doesn’t mean some legitimate, registered voters won’t be turned away or have their ballots invalidated. And in a close race, those uncounted votes could make a big difference, as we’ve seen in the past.

I just spent three days canvassing for Barack Obama in Pennsylvania. I won’t claim this makes me an expert about the election. However, I do think I learned a few things that help provide some context to the polls, which continue to show Obama well ahead of McCain. I’ll lay out my thoughts over the next couple of days, starting with the first one, here:

1. There are very few truly undecided voters—but "aversive racists" could decide the election.
With just three weeks to go until the election, I believe the vast majority of voters have made up their minds. And most will vote along party lines, as they do in just about every election. Yet some recent polls continue to show as much as 11% of the electorate to be undecided. That’s inconsistent with historical numbers; by this point in 2004, for example, some state polls showed just 4% of voters to be on the fence. So, what’s the real story?

To put it bluntly, I believe most "undecided" voters are actually what Nicholas Kristof recently referred to as "aversive racists"—people who have unconscious racist tendencies that they don’t even admit to themselves. I came across numerous "undecided" voters in my door-knocking work, including some with "D" and even "L" next to their names on my list. None were openly hostile to me, but virtually all declined my offer of additional information to help them make up their minds. These voters, I believe, had made their choice, but didn’t want to admit it, even to themselves.

My experience jibes with recent reports like the one in yesterday’s New York Times that provides some perspective on the "Bradley effect," and quotes Adam Berinsky, an M.I.T. professor who has written about "I don’t know" voters. According to Berinsky, New York voters who felt uncomfortable voting for David Dinkins in his 1989 run against Rudolph Giuliani because of Dinkins’ race, were more likely to tell pollsters that they didn’t know who they would be voting for. Dinkins won, but did so by just 2%, despite polls that showed him ahead by as much as 14%.

Does this mean polls need to show Obama with a similar lead in order for him to win? Or that we can assume that all but about 4% of today’s undecideds are really in McCain’s corner? No, of course not. The numbers are inexact enough, and disparities among various polls large enough, that it’s hard to know for sure how many false undecideds are really out there. And I believe (or, perhaps, want to believe) that we are also living in another era, one in which the race of a candidate is simply not an issue for the vast majority of American voters. However, in a close election, the vast majority may not decide the winner. As Pew’s Andrew Kohut commented in the Times, “How much we are under-representing people who are intolerant and therefore unlikely to vote for Obama is an open question. I suspect not a great deal, but maybe some. And ‘maybe some’ could be crucial in a tight election.”

However, the aversive racists aren’t the only uncountable group that may play a crucial roll in this election – and other factors may well be working in Obama’s favor. More on that next time.

As a TPM reader comments:

If a Dem had made that statement (my fellow prisoners) and in that context, the repubs would loudly proclaim the man mad as a hatter and unfit for the presidency. And judging from other recent actions, he may very well be unfit and it would not be a service to the country to gloss it over.

Yglesias on what happens with mass foreclosures:

So the homeowners lose their homes, which is bad for them. And the banks, rather than being able to recoup the losses by taking over the properties, are left with a bunch of worthless houses, which is bad for them. And then this situation adversely affects the value of everyone else’s house in the area. And many of the foreclosed houses wind up left standing vacant, which is bad for the whole neighborhood in a whole bunch of other ways.
...
Since we know the end state will involve more-or-less the same set of people living, in the aggregate, in more-or-less the same set of houses and making, in the aggregate, lower monthly mortgage payments we ought to be able to short-circuit some of the dislocation. Have people stay in the houses they’re in right now. Adjust their monthly payments down to something they can afford, but that constitutes a better deal from the bank than what they’d be able to get by auctioning the property.

Might seem simplistic, but it’s a strong argument. Unfortunately, it’ll never happen. We’ll give $700 billion to the big banks for their mortgage junk, but won’t spare a dime for homeowners, even though, in the long run, it would actually help the homeowners, banks and the broader economy to do so.

More here.