Russia One Year Ago

The following is an essay I wrote on Russia and her relationship with the West in June of 2007. Will this be enough to get me into SAIS? Please? S'il vous plait? Min fadlak?

Global Cooling

The United States and a More Assertive Russia

With the Group of 8 Conference in full swing, the majority of public focus is on the issue of global warming. However, perhaps some attention should be paid to the cooling relations between two of the world’s largest military powers. Although the rivalry between the United States and Russia has turned into an uneasy friendship since the end of the Cold War 16 years ago, the two nations have seen their already tenuous relationship take a turn away from progress in recent years. Perhaps this is the effect of Russian assertiveness that has resulted from a recent economic boom or a newfound confidence from a leadership that has seemed to secure domestic power indefinitely. Regardless, the United States and its allies must take affirmative steps to integrate Russia into the global community in an effort to help Russia grow and bring stability to a region of the world that desperately needs it.

The Russian economy has fared well recently due to the increase in the global demand for fossil fuels. This economic success has led the Kremlin to become more aggressive in its foreign policy. Specifically, the Russian government has made a recent push to reestablish its influence in former Soviet bloc areas. Russian military movement in the former Soviet republics is frequent and rarely questioned. For example, Moldova and Georgia have requested that Russian forces be removed from their borders without any action taking place. More concerning is the lack of international objection to the infringement on those nations’ sovereignty.

Yulia Tymoshenko, the leader of Ukraine’s parliamentary opposition, claims that Vladimir Putin is susceptible to outside criticism. He advises that Western leaders take advantage of this sensitivity and speak against developments that take Russia further away from democracy and towards regression. The United States and other Western nations are not doing any favors for the Russian people by abstaining to criticize the Russian government for its recent diplomatic tactics. In fact, by remaining silent, the West is effectively allowing Russia to pursue its imperialist ambitions unchecked.

The United States and its allies need to place counterweights on Russian expansion by helping foster relations between Russia and its European neighbors. The easiest way to accomplish this would be to bolster the independence of the former Soviet block states, such as the Ukraine, so that they may work together with Russia to form some sort mutually beneficial relationship. The more secure Russia feels with its neighbors, the less inclined it may feel to pursue its imperial ambitions. To complement this, Europe and the United States should welcome Russia into international agreements and talks to develop cooperation with the Kremlin. While trying to foster friendship, the Western powers should not be afraid to engage in dialogue with Russia that is frank and asserts the West’s point of view. By doing this, the West can show respect for the Kremlin that has not been seen since the days of the Soviet Union. The Russians will likely understand a policy based on respect rather than one that appeals solely to cooperation and friendship. This sort of policy can make the Russians feel like a respected peer instead of scolded teenager.

The West’s neglect of Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union has led to a nation that has been downgraded in the eyes of the community and as a result has become insecure in its place on the international scene. However, the West and Russia must realize that there can be a mutually beneficial relationship that will provide economic prosperity to both and desperately needed stability for the Kremlin. These two things, prosperity and stability, should focus the Russian government on domestic development rather than foreign conquests and provide the United States with a dramatically more subtle form of “containment” than that employed during the Cold War. Except this time, the United States may gain a powerful ally for the future instead of a crippled enemy left in the past.

Twenty First Century Realpolitik

Otto von Bismark used to quip that foreign policy should not be chained by the cumbersome constructs of ideology and morality. He believed in ruthless pursuit of foreign goals through any means possible. He was, in essence, a poster child for Machiavelli. And as a result, he led Germany to continental dominance in the mid to late 19th century.

Contrast this with the current Republican administration which relies heavily on the neoconservative school of governance. The Bush White House has dramatically shifted the foreign policy paradigm of their party to the other side. They are idealists. They believe in good vs. evil, and right vs. wrong. They split the world into "good" democracies and an Axis of Evil. Idealists fore go practical considerations in favor of value considerations (see Iraq War). This is a sharp break from the Republican tradition of Kissinger, Reagan, and elder Bush who conducted foreign policy based on cold calculation and protection of interests.

But now we have an old enemy turned new ally playing the geopolitical game of the 19th century. By retaliating against Georgian aggression in South Ossetia and pushing their forces into Georgia proper, the Russians are displaying the sort of Machiavellan intuition that led to the rise of Germany in the late 19th century.

Will they be the next troublesome world power? Probably not. But then again, Germany grew in a world utterly dominated by Great Britain, so there's no definite answer to that question.

However, we can draw certain historical parallels and place them in modern context to accurately judge how the United States should approach the problem of a more assertive Russia.

Honestly, it was only a matter of time before Russian petrodollars translated into military force. Many political scientists have recently started comparing post Soviet Russia to the Weimar Republic of the interwar years. Both nations had a shattered economy and a population that heavily resented the fall of their respective empires. Both nations then saw an authoritarian leader take power under the guise of democracy and lead them to economic prominence. It doesn't matter that Russia was more fortunate than Germany because of the high price of oil, all that matters for this comparison is that both nations rose to economic prominence seemingly out of nowhere.

What is even more interesting is that the invasion of Georgia parallels the Nazi takeover of Danzig and the Sudentenland. Hitler justified his actions by saying that he was merely protecting German peoples from prosecution in those areas. Sound familiar? The Russian autocracy's main justification for the use of force was that Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia were killed by Georgian aggression.

A bigger concern is that the citizens of South Ossetia and the breakaway Georgian province of Abkhazia hold Russian passports. Therefore any attack on them could provide a just war justification for the Russians. Sure that may give the Russians justification to drive the Georgians out of those regions, but not to push further into Georgia proper.

However, we're not dealing with a government that bases its decisions on morality. We are dealing with a government that sees the world through the eyes of 19th century power politics and realpolitik. The Russians saw their chance to put an end to a country that has been a thorn it their side for some time now. After this disastrous altercation, there is very little chance that NATO or the EU would risk granting Georgia full membership.

Mission accomplished.

But no. The Russians seemingly want to go further and topple the current democratic regime, not just prevent it from joining the EU and NATO.

So what is the West to do?

Traditionally, negotiating with a power that plays realpolitik and uses force to do so has been considered appeasement. Neville Chamberlain anyone?

Up to this point, the United States and EU have played a pretty even hand with Russia. They have diffused any potential situations be using diplomacy and cunning to keep the Russians content; mainly because they think they need Russian support on a host of world issues ranging from Iran to nuclear non-proliferation. However, this is probably one situation were diplomacy and carrots won't be as effective as some version of the stick.

However, is war with Russia an option?

The EU won't risk its short term energy future to fight Russia over Georgia.

The United States won't risk opening another front for its already battle fatigued forces.

However, the Western allies have to play a little power politics themselves to force Russia to stand down. The Russians currently have everything in their favor. Georgia is a small nation in the center of the Oil Road. It does not have any strategic allies in the region and cannot count on Western forces to aid it effectively due to geographical isolation. Soft power won't be enough to deter Russia.

All of this is setting a dangerous precedent for the region. If Russia can have its way with a neighboring country and effect regime change by brute force, then what's to stop her from pursuing that strategy in other nations. The Baltic states and Ukraine have the most to lose here. They are not only democratic institutions on the path towards EU membership, but also have been outspoken critics of Putin's administration. They have, so far, been an effective check on the territorial ambitions of the Russians. However, depending on how this war ends, they may become more timid in their accusations in the near future.

More important is the effect this aggression may have on the Russian political psyche. They have outmaneuvered the West completely in this conflict. We cannot do anything but sit, watch, and hope Moscow signs some sort of cease fire agreement. By not being able to pursue a military option, NATO has effectively been neutered in the Caucuses area and the United States' military limits have been exposed.

Most importantly, the Russians know that the West is unwilling to challenge them militarily or isolate them diplomatically.

So what is the solution to this mess?

Only time can tell.

One option includes extending NATO membership to Georgia and Ukraine as a deterrent to future Russian aggression. Russia would not dare attack a NATO member and incur the wrath of the entire alliance. And they would have the security of knowing that NATO could not launch a preemptive strike. After all, where would NATO member states get their oil from?

Another option includes defending the right of Georgia to exist. This means that the United States defend the the capital, Tbilisi and force the Russians to make a decision: either turn back or find themselves in open conflict with the United States.

Both of these paths pretty much pave the way for another Cold War. But if Russia favors becoming a 19th century power player over a 21st century global moderator, then there are very few options.

There are a few reasons diplomacy won't work in this situation. First, the Russians really don't offer the West much in the way of being effective world leaders. They've continually refused to place santions on Iran and even provide them with nuclear materials. They also refuse to impose any sort of incursion into Sudan to prevent the genocide in Darfur. So what do we bargain for? Apparently the status quo, and that's not much of a chip. Second, as explained above, the Russians have all the leverage in the situation and no incentive to negotiate.

Whatever happens though, one thing is certain: Russia has finally asserted itself in a manner that we thought extinct. They have resurrected the power politics of the 19th and 20th centuries that many pundits and experts thought long dead. We might be on the verge of witnessing the dangerous rise of twenty first century realpolitik from a nation that has once again found power and is eager to use it.

A Word On InBev and Budweiser

Sure my "independent " blog has Barack Obama propaganda littered throughout it, but that does not mean I formulate my opinion on party lines. My social values are quite "liberal" (in the sense that Americans use the word) and are in tune with most Democratic policies. But my views on economics and finance tend to side with the Republicans (which, ironically, are classically liberal).

During this presidential race the Democrats have played the populist card by bashing free trade and blaming globalization for the ills of the working class. They blame speculators for the high price of oil and immigrants for loss of jobs. This was John Edwards platform in his brief stint and it soon became Hillary Clinton's trump card in the blue collar rust belt states. Demonizing globalization and open borders is a dangerous game for the Democrats to play. Protectionist measures will only accelerate the spiral we are in. This is one path I hope Senator Obama does not pursue.

If we start redacting free trade agreements and impose import tariffs on consumer goods, the greatest suffering will come from the middle class and very poor. Things we take for granted (mainly 90% of the shit at WalMart) will only get more expensive for the average consumer. Sure, you or I may not consistently shop there, but the majority of Americans do. And if we impose import tariffs on foreign goods, then everything in WalMart that is made in China becomes as expensive as the stuff made in the US. Now, you may argue that this is a good thing because it keeps American goods competitive. Sure, it might. But it takes away something fundamental - choice.

The advantage of having a diverse and open economy is that it leaves us with choices. Some people want the cheaper foreign good because, in all honesty, it may perform as effectively as the domestic brand. By taking away that choice, we force everyone to pay higher prices and create a homogeneous market. This will invariably lead to a decrease in quality of domestically made goods as American companies seek to widen profit margins because the government protects them from competition. Basically, the market will be flooded with expensive low quality goods and middle America will bear the brunt. Isn't this exactly what the Democrats are trying to protect against?

Here is a real life example of why globalized trade benefits the blue collar worker. Although high paying labor jobs have been more difficult to find and therefore wage earnings have dipped, the overall price of goods in the market have either remained the same or become cheaper. Think about everything that can be outsourced ie. shoes, electronics, toys, anything. These consumer goods have gained in quality and have become cheaper at the same time over this period of globalization. Cars, flat screen televisions, clothes, are all cheaper than they were 10 years ago. Even if you take into consideration the 3% annual rate of inflation, the prices of consumer goods have remained equivalent numerically to their 1998 cost. DVDs in 1998 cost $20. Now the price is actually lower and the worth of the dollar has decreased. So the real cost of the DVD is actually lower than its numerical price.

And consider this: the price of services that cannot be outsources have gone up tremendously in the United States. Can anybody say college tuition and movie tickets? Movie tickets on average cost about $3-4 dollars more now than they did in the 90s. That is due to the fact that we don't outsource movie making. The same with college tuition. There is virtually no global competition when it comes to a post secondary education. Nobody is going to send their kids abroad for a cheaper education. However, I can get a Benz now for around $30k, which was unthinkable back in the early to mid 90s.

Now lets look at an industry, probably one of the very few global industries, that still suffer from tariffs and government subsidies: food. Food prices have risen dramatically over the past 2 years. There are variety of causes such as an increase in demand from developing nations and various environmental factors, such as an unusually long Australian drought. But one of the biggest reasons food is getting more expensive is because countries are becoming more protectionist. Of course this is only natural because national governments have a duty to provide for their citizens first. Export tariffs keep food in the country for domestic consumption and curb supply internationally, therefore driving up costs. However, I'm not looking to solve the world food problem, but only pointing out that the high price of food can be attributed to protectionism.

Here's an example. If India is the world's largest exporter of rice and puts trade restrictions on its farmers, then less rice will enter the global market. This automatically increases the price of rice because supply has been cut off. In an atmosphere of high demand, this will only make the impact of the restrictions more dramatic. Now other nations who depend on Indian rice exports have to restrict exports on their foodstuffs in order to maintain domestic stocks. So a positive feedback loop has started where less food enters the market and prices skyrocket because other nations who can't find food on the open market restrict their exports.

Now, a lot of people have had reservations about foreign investment in the United States. They cry about China buying a US natural gas company, or Mercedes buying Chrysler. But in a global economy we will have to buy or be bought to survive. InBev's purchase of Anheuser Bush is one in a natural course of events in a globalized world. InBev decided that they needed a bigger distribution outlet in North America and made the decision to purchase AB. However, this is not a one way deal. AB will also have InBev's distribution in Europe and South America. This means that Budweiser can increase its market share globally and increase profits for AB, which will still be based in America. At the same time, we can get InBev's products in North America for less. And InBev will most likely consider brewing their most popular products in the United States to cut costs, contributing to the creation of local jobs (which is even more realistic now because of high transportation costs).

Some may argue that the consumer is duped because the quality of the beer will get worse a la Mercedes Benz after the merger with Chrysler. However, economics doesn't deal with the highest quality for the lowest amount of people. Sound economics yeilds the highest quality for the highest amount of people. After Benz merged with Chrysler, there were reports that the overall quality of the Mercedes brand vehicle declined. It probably did. But what was more important, to the consumer and Mercedes, was that an entirely untapped market was now able to purchase their product. The American middle class could spend their money buying "superior German engineering". And for the rich who wanted to spend $100k on a Benz, they could get the higher end models. But what was important was that more people were enjoying Mercedes vehicles at a lower cost. It provided a quality vehicle to the American people and wider profit margins to Dialmer Chrysler.

In the end the United States will be the crossroads for the global economy, that much will never change. But what must change is how we look at the world and how we operate within it. We have to accept that fact that globalization has put is at the pinnacle of the world economy and is doing the same for other nations around the world who embrace its principles. If we yield to the demands of populists and protectionists, then not only will the world lose its biggest consumer market, but those who the populists and protectionists seek to protect will be the first to feel the wrath of asinine economic policy.

The Clinch

As we've all heard by now, Barack Obama made history last night by being the first minority candidate to win a nomination from a major party for the presidency of the United States. Unfortunately his victory is being slightly eclipsed by Hillary Clinton's lack of grace and unfettered ego. As much as I'd like to vent about her speech last night and pick out every tidbit of boundless narcissism and arrogance from it, I'll leave that to this morning's press. Instead, I want to look at Obama's speech and what his candidacy has stood for so far.

Last night's speech was incredible. He started off slow to congratulate Clinton's effort in the primaries and made a pitch to her supporters (who, by her own doing, have become poker chips in this game). He also complimented McCain before taking a few jabs at the Republican in response that candidate's speech earlier in the night. But the meat of Obama's speech came out at the end where he laid his campaign out for everyone to hear.

This man can do what only few others have been able to do. He makes you look upon him and see yourself and your dreams. He doesn't espouse himself or his ability to make the world a better place. Instead he only asks you to put him in a position where he can help us make America great again. He doesn't resort to waving the bloody flag of 9/11 for political purposes like Clinton did in her speech. Instead he referred to the great leaders of the past who stood for change and kept America at the summit of global prominence. This is important because fear mongering blinds the public from the truth and leads to gaffes like the Iraq war and the Patriot Act.

His campaign is not about himself. He never once referred to himself in the speech. The only promise he made was that neither his campaign nor his party would every "use religion as a wedge and patriotism as a bludgeon." This is powerful stuff. He took aim at everything the Republicans have done in the past 7 years and promised a departure from it. He has effectively given the Democratic Party a new foreign policy that differs itself from the Republican paradigm. John Kerry lost an election partly because he couldn't make this distinction. Obama doesn't merely offer change and leave it as an abstract concept that we can strive for. He put it on the table yesterday and he told us how we'll change.

He wants to use diplomacy as our primary weapons and concentrate on the "good war" in Afghanistan. The Republicans have called this appeasement. But was talking to Libya and getting them off the terror list appeasement? Was talking to North Korea and halting their nuclear ambitions appeasement? The Republican policy of having no policy in the Middle East has lead to America being marginalized in a region where we've committed billions of dollars of resources. The Arab states have no confidence in us whatsoever and even Israel has gone behind our backs to negotiate with Syria (who has sought to negotiate with us for some time now). It has become clear that any solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict will not currently go through the United States but through regional powers such as Egypt, Turkey, and Lebanon.

Obama also understands that outsourcing will never be stopped. As long as we are a capitalist society, every corporation will seek to operate as efficiently as possible. But he understands that we need to encourage jobs that cannot be outsourced such as those in the tech sector and infrastructure reconstruction. He wants to make college education "a birthright" and not a privilege of the bourgeois. Both of these things need to be combined to revitalize the American ingenuity that has kept us in front for the better part of the century.

His entire speech focused on not how great his campaign has been or how great he can be. It focused on how great America can still be. We've fallen from the top a bit and our lead in the global power race has been cut recently. We have no moral authority and are considered the bully of the global theater once again. Our nation has not led the world the way the world wants us to lead them. We refuse to take part in greenhouse gas reduction and global warming. Obama mentioned a carbon tax cap and trade in his speech last night. He clearly knows what the nation needs domestically and what the world expects of us. We are the beacon of hope in this world but the bulb in the lighthouse has been flickering for the past 7 years. Its time to replace it and light the way for the rest of the globe to follow.

A World Without American Moral Authority

Two weekends ago Cyclone Nargis hit the coast of Burma ("Myanmar" but I refuse to acknowledge the name used by the Junta) and caused devastating flooding and wind damage. People's food stocks were heavily damaged and rice rendered inedible. Their homes were ripped asunder by merciless gales and washed away by relentless waters. And it only gets worse from there.

The ruling Junta, an alliance of military leaders, were notified of the impending Cyclone and did nothing to warn the people in its trajectory. They control every Burmese media outlet so nobody was aware of what was on the horizon. As a result, there was no preparation or bracing for the impact Nargis unleashed.

And even that's not the worst part.

After Nargis ripped through Burma and initial media estimates put the death toll at around 15,000 people, the Junta refused to allow international aid workers into their country. However, they acceded to allow international donations of aid supplies. Very gracious of them. In return, the generals showed videos of themselves receiving the aid on the tarmac and shaking hands with the deliveryman. Reports from CNN and the BBC also noted that boxes of aid that were delivered were littered with the names of Junta leading generals and wealthier families that are allied with the regime. Even in crises, this deplorable ruling party promotes itself.

However, people that weren't allied with them were denied from providing any sort of relief effort. Even aid agencies such as UNICEF were denied visas for entry to ease the humanitarian crises. The result has been 3 toilets for 35,000 people. International aid agencies have projected that more than 100,000 people will die as a result of infection and disease that will manifest themselves due to lack of humanitarian aid.

Several western nations are calling on the United Nations to intervene on Burma's national sovereignty by enacting the "responsibility to protect" doctrine. The doctrine was adopted in 2005 by the UN and allows it to infringe on a nation's borders when the government is either unable to provide for the safety of its citizens or blatantly refuses to. The latter justifies international intervention here.

However, due to the deep economic ties that Burma has formed with its immediate neighbors Thailand, India, and China, this will be difficult to pull off. India has an energy deal in place with the Junta and Thailand a logging agreement. China has backed the Junta since its formation and all three nations rely upon Burma for rice exports (The Junta exports all rice grown in the country at the expense of its citizenry, leaving none in reserve.) So those three nations have an economic interest in preserving the Junta's rule and staying in favor with them.

However, the bigger problem comes from the United States and its lack of moral authority in today's global climate. The last 8 years has seen a precipitous fall in the influence the United States has on global issues. From the war in Iraq to the existence of Guantanamo Bay, the United States has seen its influence in human rights wane. Even China has cited Gitmo as a reason the US has no right to speak on Chinese human rights violations. Yes, China has successfully cited American human rights abuses as a diplomatic retort.

Without moral authority, the United States has no leverage to convince nations like Burma to open up to humanitarian efforts or to gather a coalition to force an opening. The war in Iraq showed the world that toppling a dictator can lead to near disastrous results: unexpected civil war, and large division between ethnic groups. No coalition will invade Burma in the name of humanitarianism because they fear the unintended consequences. Furthermore, China will probably veto any measures to do so in the Security Council.

So as more and more people die in Burma due solely to the fact that the government denies them aid in an effort to consolidate power, all we can do is watch and shake our heads. Without moral authority, the United States cannot garner an international consensus to act decisively. The only nation in the world that is powerful enough to help the Burmese is powerless to do so. This is the consequence of 8 years of terrible foreign policy and gradual dismantling of Pax Americana.

$30 for a Vote? Maybe if it Were in Euroes....

Finally, a bone of contention between the Democratic candidates. Even more, one of them agrees with the Republican nominee. Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton and John McCain, suspending the federal tax on gasoline won't do much to stimulate the American economy. And unfortunately for Barack Obama, his intelligent argument against suspension won't win him any friends in the ever so important white middle class demographic. This is one of those issues where a leader needs to take an apparently unpopular stand on an issue for the sake of the economy.

Suspending the gasoline tax for the summer months will cost the federal government about $6-7 billion in revenue. The tax is projected to pull in $30bn in revenue for 2008. And most of this goes to the states in the form of capital for road construction and infrastructure improvement. While at the same time, suspending the tax will only net about $30 per person/family during the period of tax free gas. The question that Senator Obama and economists pose is this: is that $30 worth the suspension of infrastructure maintenance that may cost us even more money down the road? Roads and bridges that are left to decay won't cost us now, but cutting corners to provide people with $30 can cost us millions in future construction and repair costs. And remember, the nation's bridges have already been determined to be in very poor condition.

Senators Clinton and McCain believe that the government can offset the losses of revenue by imposing a profits windfall tax on oil companies. There one major problem with this is that not all of these taxes will go to infrastructure upkeep. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that this tax would pass muster in Congress or even a presidential veto. President Bush is a product of the petroleum industry and oil companies have a huge lobbying presence in Washington. What this seems to amount to by the two Senators is vote pandering. They are essentially trying to buy votes for $30 a head by proposing this. Its even possible that they know it will never pass; so being a proponent can give them a boost with voters and not really cost them any efficacy. Who knows.

The second problem with suspending the tax is that it will cause a positive feedback cycle. All of a sudden gas becomes cheaper and demand increases in a season where Americans like to travel by automobile. What does an increase in demand bring? Higher prices! Economists have suggested that the tax suspension might even increase the price of gasoline in the summer months because more people are encouraged to go the pump to save 18 cents per gallon. Then in the fall, when the tax is reinstated, we'd have to deal with higher prices with the tax! Even if the tax is relatively minuscule, it just looks more expensive and may cause consumers more concern.

It is also interesting to note that this proposal is advocated by Senator Clinton. She has played the populist card throughout the primary process by claiming to bring jobs back to industrial America. Now she is advocated a proposal that will cause her home state of New York to either suspend or cut 300,000 highway maintenance jobs. So we're not going to shift your jobs overseas, we're just going to cut a tax that feeds your families. At least gas will be cheaper! This has to be the height of hypocrisy. In addition to letting our infrastructure decay further, the federal government will cut 300,000 domestic employees in order to provide people $30.

The problem for Senator Obama is that this proposal looks good on paper to all the white middle class "bitter" voters that he has estranged. Senators Clinton and McCain may come out on top in this argument solely due to the fact that the affected populace feels like they are getting something. They will further the image of Obama as just another elitist Washingtonite who doesn't care about the common folk. Where, in fact, he understands that the proposal has no economic validity whatsoever and is just a deplorable attempt to buy votes. Its just an other bandaid on the gunshot wound that is our energy policy. But, appropriately, that is another story for another time.

The Death of the Democratic Party

The Democratic Party in the United States is on the verge of collapse. With Senator Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania last night, the race for the nomination has undoubtedly been guaranteed to go down to the convention. Clintonites argue that their candidate is more battle tested and that this tough race is good for the party. It airs dirty laundry and puts everything on the table for the people of the United States to see. In reality, the Clinton ego is dragging the Party down a dangerous road. At the end of which is a maelstrom waiting to sink the boat of America's Left.

There is no indication so far that the Pennsylvania victory turns the tides in anyone's favor. Instead, it will most likely preserve the status quo. Senator Obama lost a state that is heavily populated by white working class voters. And, as expected, the breakdown shows that he won the areas of the state which were populated with educated and African American voters. But the numbers in Pennsylvania tell a different story. The Democratic voters are increasingly voting along demographic lines. This means that the support for candidates is becoming cemented among certain groups. White working class voters went something like 70-30 in favor of Clinton. Whereas blacks when the usual 80-20 for Obama.

So what happens at the end of the road. Mathematically it is impossible for Clinton to catch Obama in the popular vote or the delegate count. Unless she wins a few states by more than considerable margins, she cannot catch up. Her strategy now seems to be focused on marring Obama's reputation through negative campaign ads and scrutinizing everything he does. Obama has been far from the golden boy recently as well in his responses. This is a fair political tactic in the United States. For a general election perhaps. But it is a dangerous strategy to employ during primary season. It undermines the party's credibility and gives the appearance of petty bickering. The candidates just don't seem to understand that the entire country, not just the Democrats, are watching this. A Karl Rove scorched earth tactic isn't doing the Party any favors.

If Clinton's strategy works and she convinces the superdelegates that Obama's ability to get elected is suspect, then the Party will fracture. Obama has the numbers and popular vote to make a legitimate case for his ascension into the general election. If the superdelegates overrule the popular vote, then they will be essentially be saying that the people don't matter. Something they themselves accused the Supreme Court of saying in the 2000 election. Can this manner of hypocrisy go unpunished? No. If the Party hands the nomination to Hillary, they will alienate a good portion of their constituency. The black base of the Party will no longer have exclusive faith in the Democrats nor will the intellectual elite that has supported Obama. Furthermore, the masses who have donated to Obama's campaign at a grassroots level may sit the election out or vote for the Republican nominee. It is a doomsday scenario for the Democrats.

If the Party, on the other hand, goes with the will of its constituency and nominates Obama, the worse case scenario seems less dire. If we assume that Obama loses the general election, there will be an outcry from Senator Clinton and her supporters in a bout of "I told you so!" However, that is a lesser evil to face than the fracturing of the entire Party. Other people may lose faith in the Democrats' ability to win elections. But those numbers would still be less than the possible defectors of the scenario above. And losing an election due to general incompetence is a wound that is easier healed than one based on disenfranchisement. Therefore, allowing Obama to take the nomination based on the numbers and will of the voters would be a better step for the survival of the Democrats. Regardless of what Clintonites may say (basically that America is too racist to elect a black president), Obama is following an unpopular president and has the charisma necessary to take the White House.

The Doomsday scenario for the Democrats would come to fruition if Hillary Clinton garnered the nomination on the backs of superdelegates and still managed to lose the general election to Senator McCain. Clinton would appear to have bullied the Party into giving her the nomination at the expense of the popular vote winner only to lose an almost certain Democratic White House. This would probably end the Democratic Party as we know it. The Obama supporters would feel disenfranchised and vindicated at the same time. And that is dangerous combination. The would have a legitimate gripe about having their candidate's chances wrestled away unjustly and the gall to take action because the opposition failed to secure the ultimate prize. The sections of the Party supporting Obama would be completely justified in forming a third party. The only thing that could save the party is Obama convincing his followers to remain with the Democrats. Even so, the battle lines will have been drawn and there will be a battle of coalitions within the Party for years to come.

This prolonged race, no matter what both candidates say, is damaging the credibility of the Democratic Party. The Republicans, who may not necessarily support McCain 100%, are at least resigned to the fact that he won the nomination fairly and accept the will of the electorate. Furthermore, they are being unified by the intramural bickering taking place between the Democrats. The dysfunction across the isle gives more credence to the Republican claim that they are more qualified to run the country and it justifies their historic hold on the White House. If the Democrats can't even run their own primary and set up a logical party system, how can they even claim to be able to run the country? The problem is that the Republicans don't even have to explicitly state this about their rivals. Its something the people will consider subconsciously during the general election.

The only way the Democratic Party can dodge the event horizon is if Senator Obama wins the White House. If he manages to pull of the victory, then the Democratic primary system, while still obviously flawed, will have been justified for this election. They would have followed the will of the electorate and claimed victory. The Clintonites would finally be silenced and the party would have, hopefully, 8 years to convalesce. Sure Clinton's supporters will be bitter, but they have no legitimate gripe because the numbers were in favor of Senator Obama and the superdelegates did the right thing. Democracy will have worked. Otherwise, they might as well write You're Welcome cards to John McCain in the oval office.