Predictions Right on Track

A time ago, I made a pair of bold predictions. The first was that Hillary Clinton would be nominated as the Presidential candidate for the Democrats. Ok, so that one wasn't so bold. However, I also predicted that Fred Thompson, at the time an undeclared candidate, would vault into the Republican nomination. Everything is going as planned. First, Clinton holds about a 20-point lead over her closest rival. Second, Thompson has recently declared his candidacy, which although it surprised no one, the extent of his surge in the polls has been unexpected. According to the latest RealClearPolitics aggregate, Thompson is within about 7 points of Guiliani...and the climb continues.

For Your Intellectual Stimulation

Some interesting articles I've found on Hispanic immigration and voting trends:

The Flood at the Border Begins to Ebb

As security efforts at the U.S.-Mexican border have increased, so has the number of illegal immigrants detained attempting to cross, signifying an overall drop in illegal crossings. However, another major cause is less obvious: conditions inside of Mexico have improved, making the journey north less enticing.

GOP Inroads with Hispanics

As Hispanics have become more interwoven to the fabric of American society, making gains in personal income, they have become more open to leaving the Democrats. Polls show that younger, more-educated Hispanics are least tied to the Democratic Party.

A Democratic Shoe-in for 2008?

The outcome of the 2008 Presidential race seems clear. Dissatisfaction with President Bush and the War in Iraq is very high. Voters say they would vote generically for the Democratic party over the Republicans by large margins. Democrats in the Presidential race have raised more than $100 million more their counterparts. Looking at the way things stand right now, it seems all but certain that a Democrat will be elected to the White House in November of 2008...

Not so fast. While all of these things are devastating hurtles for Republican Presidential hopefuls, it is far too early to cast a victor in the race. This is true for two reasons: the focus of the race is not guaranteed to stay the same all the way up until the election, and Hillary Clinton.

We have already said that the deck is stacked against the Republicans because of the War in Iraq. However, it is impossible to say what the situation will look like by the time the election rolls around. A widely-sited recent report by Michael O'Hanlon and Keith Pollack of the Brookings Institution claims that the recent U.S. troop surge has had a significant effect in pacifying portions of the country. Under the leadership of General Patraeus, troop morale has increased markedly and many Iraqis have turned against Al-Qaeda and its brutal tactics. ("A War We Just Might Win"). If this recent success is continued, it is within reason to think that Iraq could look substantially better at election time than many have assumed. Even if Iraq remains a significant obstacle, it is possible that it could be trumped in importance by the emergent threats of Iran or North Korea. If so, the candidates' stances on these new national security issues could play out to be just as important as their opinion on whether the Iraq War was a good decision - or even their plan for going forward. No doubt about it, Republicans in the coming election will make every effort to shift the focus to issues that play more in their favor. While the public is focused on Iraq now, there is no guarantee that will be the main issue 15 months from now.

The second reason that it is premature to call this race for the Democrats is because of Democratic primary voters themselves. Hillary Clinton has led the race by wide margins from the beginning, and her lead shows no signs of narrowing. In all likelihood she will be the Democratic nominee; all that remains to be seen is who her VP choice will be. While many predict that Obama will win out, it seems unlikely that the Democrats would simultaneously attempt to break the color and gender barriers in one election cycle. More likely in my opinion is John Edwards. Regardless of who she picks, however, Hillary's candidacy will suffer from one overwhelming burden: the fact that she is not wildly liked by moderates, and is loathed by conservatives. Indeed, in almost all current polls where Hillary is matched up against either Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani, she garners less than 50%. (Thompson vs. Hillary; Giuliani vs. Hillary ) When Clinton is matched up against Thompson, who I have already predicted to be the Republican nominee, she is leading by a current margin of about 4%. These poll matchups will fluctuate in the coming weeks and months, but the fact that Clinton is essentially even with a largely unknown quantity like Thompson, while virtually everyone knows her and what she stands for, should be a serious concern for anyone in her camp. At this point, my opinion is this: any advantage the Democrats have over the Republicans in the polls is completely wiped away with a Hillary nomination. We will be back to a 50-50 America.

The Population Time-Bomb Fizzles

Demographers have long acknowledged that the Malthusian population explosion is a myth. The threat of a skyrocketing population eventually sucking up all Earth's resources, leading to rampant starvation and disease is simply junk science. With the modernization of the global economy, worldwide fertility rates have been falling for decades. A more realistic concern is actually the extent to which birth rates have fallen, and may continue to fall. Today in most European and many East Asian countries fertility has sunken perilously low. Economies are bogged down as more retirees depend on fewer workers, as the article acknowledges. At least as importantly, however, entire cultures and societies teeter on the edge as they struggle to cope with this trend.

An editorial from The Economist tackles this issue from a purely, well, economic standpoint. The first part of the article does a good job of giving a background and some interesting statistics. It states, "Four out of nine people already live in countries in which the fertility rate has dipped below the replacement rate. Last year the United Nations said it thought the world's average fertility would fall below replacement by 2025. Demographers expect the global population to peak at around 10 billion (it is now 6.5 billion) by mid-century." Seemingly, this is a positive trend. A smooth transition from the rapid population growth of industrialization to a manageable rate seems ideal. This would be the case if fertility was relatively equally balanced around the globe. However, birth rates are highest in exactly the regions that can least support such population growth. Africa especially will need to confront the problems of a burgeoning population. The developed world, meanwhile, will face exactly the opposite problem.

In the second half of its editorial, The Economist goes on to discuss possible solutions to falling populations. These solutions stem from the assumption that what we are dealing with is essentially a problem of economics. As such, the editorial misses the mark by claiming, "States should not be in the business of pushing people to have babies. If women decide to spend their 20s clubbing rather than child-rearing, and their cash on handbags rather than nappies, that's up to them." First, it's quite obvious that governments should not push women to procreate. No one has suggested an approach like the Romanian dictatorship that forced women to undergo inspections to see that they had not used contraception or had abortions. Attacking this straw man gets us nowhere in understanding the situation at hand. Governments in nations of diminishing populations should undoubtedly, however, be in the business of encouraging couples to have enough children to support them in their retirement years. Such an approach has seen unparalleled success in France, where generous government benefits for mothers make it possible for women to live a successful life both in and out of the workplace. Because of these efforts, France does not face this problem to the extent of many other European nations. Encouraging citizens to maintain a healthy population - to advance the economy in the short term, and to ensure the continuation of the country in the long-term - should be at the top of the list of priorities.

The Economist, while offering a good analysis of the problem, misses the solution completely. It's cure-all: raising the retirement age, abolishing seniority-based salary structures, and increasing immigration numbers. These efforts merely sugar-coat the issue by attempting to treat the symptoms, rather than fixing the real problem. For The Economist, the problem is that economic growth and entitlement programs will suffer. In reality, the problem is low fertility itself. Slower economic advancement is but one of its troubling effects. Another equally problematic area is cultural: if societies fail to perpetuate themselves, they will cease to exist as we know them. And there is no lack of those who are willing to take their place. This is where some analysts' ignorance of the situation shines through most clearly. They propose greater immigration as a fix to falling birthrates. If Germans and Italians aren't having enough children to ensure their nations' survival, the reasoning goes, they should simply import enough Turkish and Moroccan immigrants to make up the difference. This naivety is stunning. It is as if these analysts had been living under a rock as unassimilated immigrants rioted in suburban France, burning thousand of autos and creating a national emergency. The answer is not increased immigration of millions of people from fundamentalist Islamic countries who do not share Western values of democracy, the rule of law, and freedom of speech. As a civilization we should have higher priorities than, as The Economist suggests, ensuring that European women can buy their Louis Vitton bags.


The answer does not involve replacing developed societies with new ones so that one more generation of graying seniors are assured a pleasant twilight. Governments should emulate, France's approach (yes, that's right) to supporting working mothers in childbearing. States should give generous subsidies to those families who are willing to sacrifice to have 2, 3, or more children. And while immigration has of course benefited developed nations in many ways, it is assuredly not the answer for a problem so fundamental as this. It is not an insurmountable problem, but it is one that must be confronted head-on. Indeed, presumably all nations will one day arrive at the same point. Europe and East Asia simply have the undistinguished honor of facing it first. Hopefully, they will have the foresight to treat the underlying issue itself, as opposed to short-term solutions to alleviate its symptoms.

Sharif Don't Like it...Rock the Casbah

A Small Victory for Religious Freedom in Egypt

A new report indicates that Ali Gomaa, Grand Mufti of Egypt, has issued a statement that Muslims are free to convert to other religions. "The act of abandoning one's religion is a sin punishable by God on the Day of Judgement," he explains, "If the case in question is one of merely rejecting faith, then there is no worldly punishment."

Egypt is home to roughly 80 million, approximately 90% of whom are Islamic. However, the country is also home to a substantial minority of Coptic Christians, a community with roots in the nation going back to pre-Islamic times. Despite their history, Copts have not escaped persecution, especially in recent years with the rising tide of fundamentalism in the region. The article quotes Cameel Halim, Chair of the Coptic Assembly of America: "They are isolated from mainstream society and are often forced to convert to Islam through rape, marriage, change of legal name and violence."

This latest statement is a positive sign, although not technically binding on Egyptian governmental policy. A nation that aspires to regional and global leadership such as Egypt cannot afford draconian anti-conversion legislation. Such a basic human right as freedom of religion should not overlooked by other countries when dealing with one another. Such issues are especially important in the Land of the Pharaoh, where authorities have long battled the influence of extremist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

People of all creeds should join together in hope that countries throughout the middle-East reject the path of 15th century theocracy if they truly aspire to modernity. And, nearly as importantly, let us hope that pop hits like "Walk Like an Egyptian" never return to the American top 40.

A PR Victory in the War on Terror

A new article published by the Associated Press suggests that the tide has turned against extremist groups among Muslims worldwide. The piece, published today, is based on a survey taken by the Pew Research Center, which was taken in nearly 50 countries around the globe. The survey's findings are heartening, indicating a dive in public support for Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and terrorism in general. 7 of 8 majority-Muslim states registered a decline in support for such extremists.

Some highlights: Bin Laden's popularity fell from 56 to 20% in the past four years amongst Muslims in Jordan, while the number of Pakistanis supportive of suicide bombings fell from 41 to 9% in the same period. One notable exception was the mere 6% of Palestinians who say that suicide bombings can never be justified.

The article seems to indicate that the main source of this positive trend is the increased prosperity of many majority-Muslim nations. According to this explanation, increasing GDP in oil-rich Middle Eastern states has caused the countries' populations to reject religious extremism. I don't buy this as the sole reason for this trend. It is logical that economic development leads people out of the desperation that causes terrorism. However, development in the Middle East has been steadily occurring over the past few decades, not just within the past four years. These same decades that have brought economic reform have seen a dramatic renaissance in Islamic extremism. The recent attempted terror attacks in the UK were carried out by upper-middle class physicians, not by the desperately poor and uneducated. The Saudi regime, one of the richest in the region, continues to perpetuate its version of Wahhabism, an extremist Islamic movement. The linkage between poverty and terrorism, while logical, is not absolute by any means. And even if we are to accept this link at face value, certainly the economic development over 4 short years does not go the whole way toward explaining a precipitous drop in support for extremists in the region. In this case, it seems, it's not just the economy stupid.

The results are in...

No need to sit around waiting for the race to develop, the results to come in, and the conventions to kick into gear. I'll just come right out and tell you who the nominees will be for each party in 2008. That's right, stop watching the debates, turn off the talk radio, and tune in to your favorite mind-numbing garbage! Say goodbye to FOXNews and CNN, and flip on some BET. Because the results are in. I'm technically not supposed to do this, good-of-the-nation-informed-citizen-mumbo-jumbo-blah-blah. But here goes...

Democrats: Come on, you already knew this, didn't you? It's Hillary Clinton, hands down. She's been ahead since the begin of the horse-race, and no one has made any sort of legitimate charge. Her numbers have held up, and she shows no signs of faltering. Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and the rest: start your campaign for VP now. Bill, roll your pimp-mobile out of Harlem and get on the bandwagon because Hil's the early favorite (two-thirds expect her to be the next Prez: Clinton Expected to Win ).

Republicans: This one's a bit trickier. Giuliani may well have the best shot in a general election matchup against the Dem's. However, his liberal social views alienate him from the base too much to win the nod, no matter how he tries to frame them. Romney has a shot, leading early in both Iowa and New Hampshire. However, there are not enough flip flops in upper Atlantic region (not even including Kerry's impressive collection) to distract from his vacillations. It's Fred Thompson, the tough-talking, Reagan-esque Southerner who will take on Hillary. (Here's an interesting, though negatively-biased, portrait: Encounters With "Regular Guy" )

Blog Numero Uno

This is just the beginning...

Mad Matt's Blogging Paradise will be a collection of random musings, titillating tidbits, and semi-insightful commentary about current events, political happenings, and anything else that piques my interest. All are welcome to share their opinions, as long as they're in agreement with mine (jk). Enjoy a peak inside my strange psyche.. those who make it out alive will be eternally grateful. Please stand by.