Published 2 weeks ago
With Halloween having struck a dramatic finale to October, my students find themselves heading into the home stretch of the semester. Research papers will be due soon, followed by a breath-taking sprint to Finals after Thanksgiving break. Studies that began in the sultry heat of Summer and greeted the arrival of Fall's vivid foliage masterpiece will at last come to fruition in the growing darkness and nipping chill of Winter's onset in December.
Over the course of the semester, a few recurring themes and issues have come to dominate class discussions. In International Relations, America's waning influence in the international arena, a rising China and a declining dollar have been all the rage. This dovetails nicely with concerns over soaring budget deficits and an exploding national debt in my American Government class.
In International Relations, one of my previously blissfully uninformed students admits to having become an "alarmist". Meanwhile, in American Government the prospects for our children's and grandchildren's futures are bemoaned. The American Dream of a better life for our beloved progeny are darkened by ominously gathering fiscal and economic storms on the horizon. Having been buffeted by the howling winds of what many hoped to be a finally receding recession, there is a palpable fear that the clearing skies are nothing more than the eye of a far greater and more perilous storm than we originally imagined.
This unsettling realization, reverberating from my classroom across the heartland, is beginning to sink in to the nation's collective psyche with predictable results.
As Peggy Noonan so astutely notes, "The biggest long-term threat is that people are becoming and have become disheartened, that this condition is reaching critical mass.....Americans are starting to think the problems we are facing cannot be solved."
Yet, the objective in our discussions, both in class as well as on-line, is not to alarm or dishearten my students, or you, my faithful readers and fellow countrymen. To the contrary, the objective is to inform and enlighten. As the old aphorism goes, forewarned is forearmed.
One of the principals on which our republic is built is the idea that power is derived from the people, not from government. While the Second Amendment states that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State...", I would postulate that a well informed public is equally critical to the security of our free State.
To that end, I aim to secure our free State by forearming you with knowledge and whatever illumination and insights I may bring to it. As my students are well aware, my personal motto is "Knowledge is power". Accordingly, I hope to in some small way do my part to empower them and you.
At times our discussions will indeed alarm the previously blissfully unaware. On occasion, differences of opinion, interpretation and ideology will give way to impassioned and dogged debate. At times, that debate may become heated and unruly. Passions and blood pressures will run high and disparaging labels and insults will fly like poison arrows.
Yet, in the heat of battle, amidst the snakes and arrows, let's take a moment to remember a few things.
The road ahead will be challenging, difficult, at times despairingly daunting and potentially perilous.
In order to successfully navigate it, it will take all of our energies and efforts - Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians, Democrats, Independents, Republicans and non-registered, taxpaying Joe Sixpacks alike.
We are indebted to our forebears whose labor and sacrifice paved the way for us and responsible to our posterity whose futures are rooted in our decisions and actions.
These challenges we face are indeed daunting, but no more so than those faced by a small band persecuted for their faith, sailing to an uncharted wilderness in search of religious freedom hundreds of years ago; or a rag tag group of patriots facing down the greatest empire on Earth in the quest for independence; or a tortured president paying the price in the blood of hundreds of thousands of his fellow countrymen as he struggled to preserve the republic itself; or a nation beset by Depression at home and the howling dogs of war abroad that confronted the now dwindling numbers of our "Greatest Generation".
As the Minutemen at the initiation of this great experiment we call American democracy responded to the alarm, the clarion now calls us to action. We must face it with a courage and will equal to that of our ancestors. To do any less would be a disservice to them, bring dishonor to ourselves and threaten the future of our cherished republic.
So let alarm give way to resolve, my friends. Let us embrace candor and rigorous debate, that the course we select will lead us, our posterity and the nation to that brighter future and the promise that her best days are ahead of us in the renewal of the American Dream.
Rest assured, faithful readers. It's out there on the horizon, if we have the courage, strength and discipline to seize it.
Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see if the clouds give way to blue skies or grow darker still.
Published 2 months ago
In a truly stunning decision, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has awarded President Barack Obama the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.
Coming a mere eight months into the first year of his presidency, the Prize is as unprecedented as it is surprising. Following the embarrassment of failing to win the 2016 Olympics for his hometown Chicago, with reports that French President Nikolas Sarkozy views him as "naive", while the dollar continues to be mercilessly pounded in global currency trading, assailed across the political spectrum over what route to take in the deepening quagmire of Afghanistan as health care reform remains trapped in the legislative lurch on Capitol Hill, the Prize is a moment of sweet respite for an otherwise beleaguered Obama.
Characterized by some analysts as "encouragement" for the President's initiatives to rewarding the new "tone" in Washington, the Nobel Committee's statement sited Obama's "...extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
"Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role..." the Committee said approvingly. Pointing to the inspirational force of his presidency, the Committee reverently stated, "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."
Touting their hundred-plus years promoting the idea of a global community that subordinates state sovereignty and national interests to an international consensus on the common good of mankind, the Committee proudly crowned Obama as "the world's leading spokesman."
Yes, Mr. President; they love you. They really love you.
Yet, let there be no mistake. The Nobel Committee awarded the Peace Prize not to Barack Obama, President of the United States, but rather Barack Obama, Citizen of the World.
While bowing, both literally as well as metaphorically, before his peers among the ranks of world leaders may endear him to global elites, it does nothing for his standing with the people he has sworn to serve and lead.
Lest there be some confusion amidst the starry-eyed faithful in Oslo and the White House, that would be the American people and not the newly hopeful global masses.
Yes, the President should be commended for seeking cooperation and consensus where common ground can be found. Moreover, the objective reality of the moment requires America adroitly use diplomacy to advance its interests in the face of the limitations imposed by an anemic economy, a skyrocketing fiscal deficit and a military spread thin from the Mesopotamian cradle to the heart of the Hindu Kush.
While the Nobel Committee alludes to Obama's humility on the world stage, he is by no means the first American president to recognize it as a virtue in international affairs. However, though a virtue it may well be, it does not entail sacrificing the national interests of one's nation. Might I be so bold as to suggest the President familiarize himself with the words of one of his esteemed predecessor's, Teddy Roosevelt.
Setting the tone for a humble foreign policy buttressed by a steely resolve to defend the nation's interests, the 26th President famously adopted the African proverb, "Speak softly and carry a big stick" as his mantra.
However advisable this may be, though, one must be willing to wield the big stick on those occasions when appropriate. Only in doing so, can they expect to be taken seriously and respected when speaking softly. Though eagerly practicing the later, Obama has yet to demonstrate any inclination whatsoever for the former. While this has resulted in the President's personal popularity soaring among his global peers and admirers, America's credibility, influence and prestige has correspondingly collapsed.
In addition to encouraging America's new found modesty, Obama's selection is also a final repudiation of the Bush administration. Ironically, a parting shot in the name of peace, if you will.
Viewing Bush as a cartoon caricature of a cowboy eager to shoot first and negotiate later, global elites roundly condemned America during his term for what they viewed as unrepentant and heavy-handed unilateralism. Obama's Prize is the crowning jewel in a trio of anti-Bush award winners that include Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. One might justifiably expect the President to be comfortable to be counted among the ranks of these Liberal luminaries and stalwarts of American obeisance.
In the end, the Committee in Oslo celebrated substitution over substance; hailing Obama's abandonment of America's traditional position of preeminence in the international arena for a one of hope-inspiring deference. Indeed, perhaps the Liberal dream of a global kumbayah moment is not so far away after all.
Is that John Lennon I hear ringing on high?
Alas, the audacity of global hope has trumped the primacy of America's national interests.
And it and the President have been richly rewarded as a result.
Now what was the amount of the Prize again, faithful readers? Was that 10 million dollars or 30 silver pieces? Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we watch as the President humbly receives his Prize to the cheers and accolades of billions the world over.
Published 2 months ago
With the revelation that Iran has been secretly working on an undeclared uranium enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom, the world finds it's attention once again riveted on the recalcitrant regime in Tehran and it's opaque nuclear aspirations. Following the harsh condemnations and cryptic warnings of the united front of American President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, mercurial Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remained typically defiant.
Responding to Obama's uncharacteristically stern remarks which were reprised in his weekly radio/internet address on Saturday, the beleaguered and controversial Iranian president warned his American counterpart would come to regret them.
Defending the heretofore secrecy of the facility, Ahmadinejad stated the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) only requires formal notification six months prior to a facility's operational completion. Noting the facility is still eighteen months from functional operability, he insisted Iran was not technically in violation of the UN atomic watchdog's requirements.
Following Friday's verbal jousting, Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps conducted a series of missile tests that culminated Monday with the successful launch of upgraded versions of the Shahab-3 and Sajjil-2 missiles. With a range of 1,250 miles, the surface-to-surface missiles place Israel and US bases in the region well within Tehran's military reach. Ironically, the tests came mere hours after US Secretary of State praised Tehran's decision to open the formerly secret facility near Qom to inspectors from the IAEA.
Roundly condemned by the international community, the missile drills were part of the Guards' annual war games with the Shahab-3 launch falling on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year for devout Jews. Coinciding with the anniversary of the launch of 1973 Yom Kippur War in which Israel was attacked by Egypt, Syria and Iraq, the symbolism and timing of the missile test added fuel to Jerusalem's calls for a coordinated and decisive international effort to halt Iran's drive for nuclear weapons.
With talks between the P5+1 (the permanent members of the UN Security Council, the US, Great Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany) and Iran scheduled to begin this coming Thursday, the long term impact of the facility's disclosure remains to be seen. However, as is so often the case, there are winners and losers in the interim.
Today, let's take a look at the losers. Among them are.....
Iran- The regime in Tehran has once again demonstrated that it lives by the motto - The ends justify the means. From fraudulent election results to undisclosed nuclear facilities that comply with the letter but not the spirit of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the mullahs are willing to play fast and loose in the name of regime survival and the advancement of it's strategic goals. The end result is a complete lack of credibility on the international stage and a glaring disdain for the rule of law, both at home and abroad. Anyone familiar with the term pariah state?
In addition to this, Iran has re-energized and enhanced the credibility of Neocons in the US and warhawks in Israel. Having been marginalized by the political and economic costs of the Bush Doctrine and the election of Barack Obama, they are now moving back to the foreign policy forefront, propelled in large part by the duplicity of the mullahs in Tehran. This latest revelation reinforces their assertion that the regime cannot be trusted nor deterred, it must be confronted and if need be attacked.
The IAEA- The international atomic watchdog has proven yet again it cannot independently execute critically vital elements of it's assigned mission. Were it not for the work of Western intelligence agencies, the keystone cops from Geneva would still be clueless to the Qom facility's existence. While they are the embodiment of the axiom "ignorance is bliss", in the case of Iran it is also potentially disastrous and deadly on a truly horrific scale.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty- The fact that the anti-proliferation regime allows nations to travel the road towards weaponization without being in technical violation undermines it's raison d'etre. Furthermore, the fact that rogue states such as Iran can construct clandestine facilities safe in the knowledge they will face no repercussions beyond a stern tongue-lashing so long as they divulge them within months of coming on-line highlights another fatal loophole in it's design. At this point one, has to ask if the treaty is even worth the paper it's written on.
Germany- With significant and growing economic ties with Iran, Germany has soft peddled talk of substantive sanctions against the recalcitrant regime thus far. With this latest disclosure of Tehran's unrepentant obfuscation, pressure is dramatically increasing from Washington, London and Paris for Berlin to place principal before profits once and for all. It's ultimate decision will greatly influence its' future role in the Western camp. The question is, though, what does one do when profit is one's primary principal?
China and Russia- Expectations are rising in the West (read: Washington, London, Paris and Jerusalem) for Tehran's patrons on the Security Council to at the very least acquiesce, if not enthusiastically support increased sanctions on the regime. Of the two, China has the least to gain and the most to loose from such a move. Depending on Iran for fifteen (15) percent of it's oil with deference to a state's sovereignty as the bedrock of it's foreign policy, don't look for Beijing to eagerly assist the West with it's pesky Persian predicament anytime soon.
Dmitry Medvedev- Though the Russian president condemned Tehran for it's duplicity and lack of candor and halfheartedly nodded towards the "inevitability" of increased sanctions, he was nowhere to be found when time came for a unified denouncement of the regime. Why? Because on the Russian ship of state Medvedev is little more than the cruise director; true power lies with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Though some were heartened by Medvedev's statements as a sign that Russia is beginning to tire of it's troublesome neighbors to the south, astute observers wait for Putin to set the course for Russia through the tumultuous waters ahead.
Barack Obama- In adopting a stern stance against Tehran, the President has dramatically raised expectations for himself and the US. Not only is there the assumption that the administration will eschew flowery rhetoric of reconciliation and gestures of comity in the upcoming multi-party talks with Tehran, it will also be expected to be prepared to take aggressive and substantive action should those talks fail to produce any tangible progress. Having drawn a line in the proverbial sand, the pressure is on the national security neophyte to dispel doubts about his subjective credibility. Is Obama all talk and no show, or does he put his money, or in this case the political, economic and military might of the United States where his mouth is?
Gambling going on here? Clandestine nuclear facilities in Iran? I'm shocked, faithful readers. Shocked, I say.
Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see if Iran craps out as it rolls the nuclear dice.
Published 2 months ago
The President wraps up his latest media tour-de-force tonight with an appearance on "The Late Show With David Letterman". While I personally believe it diminishes the Office of the President and it's attendant stature, I understand the rationale behind it.
Having lost control of the debate over health care reform, the President is looking to build on the momentum of his prime time address to Congress. In addition to this, Obama is trying to reach voters who pay only passing attention to the details behind the headlines that fleetingly catch their eyes in the midst of their hectic day. While they admittedly don't normally watch "Meet The Press", "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" or "State of the Union with John King", I still have to question the choice of the venue.
Will the President give in to temptation and do tonight's "Top 10 List" in an attempt to look cool and hip? No doubt it would be an instant YouTube hit and Letterman and his producers would love it. But is the cynical comedian and his audience really a forum conducive to the serious discussion of the restructuring of 1/6 of the American economy? Honestly?
Can Letterman control the involuntary reflex of his caustic tongue and resist the urge to use the President as his straight man? Will the segment be nothing more than the President chuckling and halfheartedly defending his opponent's freedom to express their difference of opinion even as the comedian mercilessly eviscerates? Will Paul Shaffer and the band punctuate the President's remarks with comedic stingers? Will Dave wander out into the audience to take questions for Obama? Will they be serious? While it will certainly be a ratings booster for Letterman, will it move public opinion on health care even fractionally?
One wonders if perhaps Jon Stewart and "The Daily Show" might be on the President's itinerary for his next barnstorming blitz through the great electronic frontier. He did win the show's target demographic handily, after all.
In addition to closing out this latest round of media carpet bombing with an appearance on a comedic talk show, what is most striking about the President's schedule is who was excluded - Fox News.
While Fox admittedly tilts to the Right in it's "fair and balanced" coverage, avoiding it is a tactical and strategic error for the White House. Did Fox refuse to carry the President's congressional address live? Yes. Is it the home of right wing firebrand du jour, Glenn Beck? Indeed, Roger Ailes and crew are responsible for propelling the mercurial Mormon into the ratings stratosphere. Has the network been a friend to the Tea Party movement and the opposition to the proposed health care reform? Undoubtedly. Nonetheless, rest assured Chris Wallace of "Fox News Sunday" is no Glenn Beck.
Wallace, a Peabody Award and three time Emmy winner, is a serious and respected journalist of the first order. Indeed, he along with Brit Hume are the champions of journalistic professionalism and integrity at Fox. Moreover, not only have Liberal stalwarts John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Edwards and Bill Clinton survived interviews with the 34-year media veteran, the President himself has done so as well as a candidate. While Wallace may be dogged in pursuing an answer, he is by no means offensive, disrespectful or belligerent.
Though the White House believes it is justified in snubbing Wallace and Fox, it has failed to seize the moment and demonstrate that "post-partisan" is more than a mere campaign buzzword. Instead of portraying the President as an unflappable leader who has the courage of his convictions, he has cast himself as little more than a petulant and petty politician. Furthermore, the President wasted a golden opportunity to unequivocally assure his opponents he respects their opinion and doesn't buy into Jimmy Carter's scornful belief that it is rooted in racism and not principal. Indeed, rather than stand in the political lion's den and bravely address the opposition, he has deemed them beneath him and unworthy of his attention.
So much for the lofty rhetoric about engaging in a comprehensive and serious national debate. Apparently that only applies to those who are sympathetic to the President's position and those who prefer softballs to hardball. Don't fret though, Chris Matthews. No doubt you'll still make the cut eventually based on the former criteria. Patience, lil camper, patience.
Following my Grandfather's admonishment to give credit where it's due, though, I must give George Stephanopoulos Bare Knuckled Kudos for his verbal jousting with the President over the definition of the word "tax". Not only did Stephanopoulos stand his ground, he forced Obama into a fiscally focused reprise of Bill Clinton's indignant defense of his definition of the words "sex" and "is". In the end, the usually cool Obama was left visibly irritated at having been backed into a rhetorical corner and reduced to a defense based solely on semantics.
Well played, George. You might forgo holding your breath waiting on that White House Christmas party invitation, though.
Now what exactly "is" a "tax" again, faithful readers?
Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see what other gems lie hidden in the dog-eared pages of the President's political dictionary and voluminous thesaurus.
Published 3 months ago
First there were the Birthers - those who fervently believe President Obama is in fact a constitutionally-ineligible usurper who is actually Kenyan, Indonesian, British or perhaps even Martian by birth. Now we have the Pipers - who believe the silver-tongued Obama will so enthrall an entire generation of our children over the course of 30 minutes that he will lead them like so many starry-eyed tweens at a Jonas Brothers concert down the primrose path to his vision of a Socialist American utopia.
Yes, despite the White House's billing of the President's remarks as the latest iteration of "eat your vegetables, do your homework and stay in school", the Pipers have seen through his poorly-crafted charade. Indeed, they see him for the pernicious political pied piper he truly is! Ever the duplicitous schemer, Obama will eschew mere encouragement for megalomaniacal indoctrination when he speaks to our children - gasp - live in their very classrooms via satellite today.
Allow me to say this as clearly and unequivocally as possible - Enough is enough.
First, there are more than enough rational and substantive reasons to oppose Obama. We need not eagerly embrace an intellectually vapid knee jerk response to everything even remotely associated with his name. As a matter of fact, I can think of several trillion reasons off the top of my head. A figure that just so happens to coincide with projections of what the President's policy proposals and budgets will add to the national debt over the course of the next few years.
From health care reform and taxes to "cap and trade" and Afghanistan to fundamentally altering the role and reach of government in society, there are too many consequential leviathans lurking in the political waters to waste our time drunkenly trawling for insubstantial red herrings.
Second, do you truly believe our children are so vacuous that the televised remarks of the President will turn them into subservient socialist zombies? Is your influence so inconsequential that Obama will be able to undue in a mere 30 minutes what you have tirelessly worked at day in and day out over the course of their entire lives? Is his appeal so alluring, his image so magnetic and his words so hypnotic that they will follow in his wake in Liberal lock-stepped legions?
In the process of fighting the supposed indoctrination of our children into mindless socialist vassals you're reinforcing the Liberal line of Conservatives being mind-numbed robots and nattering nabobs. Indeed, such hyperventilated histrionics ultimately give the President too much credit and parents too little.
Finally, has the political environment become so toxic and polarized that the President of the United States can't encourage our children to focus on their homework and do well in school without being accused of cynical and devious ulterior motives? Can't we all agree that it's a positive thing to encourage our children to spend more time with their textbooks than on Facebook? Shouldn't our children's education and the impact it has on their and our nation's futures transcend petty partisan cynicism and bickering?
Look at where we land in global rankings of literacy, math and science scores and primary graduation rates. Nationally we're approaching a 30 percent high school dropout rate, while major cities like New York and Los Angeles already graduate less than half their students. That's to say nothing of Detroit's truly horrific 75 percent dropout rate.
Sorry to offend the faithful, but I'll happily accept the President's and anyone else's assistance in keeping our children focused and in school. I'll also have faith in my wife's and my own parenting abilities to be able to counteract any half-baked educational trends and ill-conceived politically correct tripe my son may encounter at school. He, his education and future are our responsibility and we, not the state, exercise the greatest influence over them after all.
In the end, perhaps the best words of wisdom come from an unlikely and ironic source, Liberal music icons and lyrical peaceniks Crosby Stills and Nash.
Teach your children well.
Remember, faithful readers, a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Or as former vice president Dan Quayle so insightfully stated, "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is."
Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see if Obama can both inspire our children and spell potato without the assistance of the ever-present presidential teleprompter.
Published 3 months ago
In a moment of introspection and candor in his best-selling book "The Audacity of Hope", President Obama wrote, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” As his freshman Summer of Discontent gives way to what may well be a Fall of Frustration, his words seem profoundly prophetic.
In a demonstration of keen political acumen, the President's campaign deftly transformed him into the embodiment of two of the most powerful and raw forces coursing through the electorate last year - hope and change. With Shepard Fairey's iconic "Hope" poster reinforced by images of throngs of adulating voters inspired by his oratory prowess, the dreams and aspirations of millions played across the "screen" that is Obama like a panoramic Cecil B. DeMille epic. Indeed, one can easily imagine Obama leading the faithful off on their journey to the promised land of milk and honey ala Charlton Heston in "The Ten Commandments".
In stark contrast to his ardent supporters, the President's detractors saw him in equally vivid and evocative terms - disingenuous, cynical and dangerous. Damning him as duplicitous, they feverishly decried his failure to be candid on the extent of the change he truly sought. With great wailing and gnashing of teeth, the Conservative Cassandras warned the change he brought was not to Washington, but rather to the nation beyond the Beltway. Once ensconced at the pinnacle of political power, he would use it to bend the nation to the will of the rising Liberal leviathan he would preside over. In their view, an Obama presidency was a clear and present danger to our very way of life.
Though reality certainly lies somewhere in the middle, seven months into his term with the election receding into history, the President has done little to dispel either view of him. Being demonized by as many as beatify him, the question is what is the reality behind the images projected on the presidential "screen"?
Referring to a pragmatism that teetered on vacillation, James Carville once drew a dot in an empty circle and asked of Bill Clinton, what's at the center? What did he truly believe in? In light of the President's comment, the same could just as readily be asked of Obama.
What principals underpin and inform his policies? What positions are sacrosanct and non-negotiable? Having waged a crusade for the White House, what political ground does he consider holy and inviolable? To date, there is passingly little one can base any reasonable answer on.
Pardon me, but was that the faint refrain of The Who's "The Real Me" I hear in the distance? "Can you see the real me, can you, can you?"
Having farmed out the stimulus package, cap and trade and health reform to Speaker Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership, the President has displayed an uncanny ability to delegate policy while appearing to be engaged. Essentially, Obama has become the Cheerleader-In-Chief for an agenda that plays to the loftiest hopes of his most ardent supporters while reinforcing the worst fears of his timorous detractors. The result, though, is a lack of substantive leadership from the White House.
That being the case, one wonders what set of circumstances would be of such import to compel the President to step forward, lay his principals and beliefs bare to the world and unequivocally lead the nation down the path he and not others has chosen to take. Until such time he will remain a soulless political mirror and a two dimensional caricature.
Then again, perhaps that's nothing more than the image I'm projecting on the screen, faithful readers.
Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see what the next feature is in the President's political matinee.
Published 4 months ago
Despite the cacophony and chaos that has become the hallmark of congressional town hall health care reform meetings as of late, the President has nonetheless elected to embark on a series of his own.
Filled with pride, his supporters dutifully tout his bravery in the face of flagging poll numbers and dogged opposition. They swoon at the sight of their champion riding off to battle the forces of fear and hysteria with his cool demeanor, soft-spoken logic and zen-like rationality. They point to the subdued and respectful tone of his audiences as evidence that the fury over health care has reached it's zenith and will soon subside. Logic and reason will win the day and their knight in shining armor will deliver peace to the land and health care to it's weary people.
However, a closer, more objective look reveals something distinctly different from the fairy tale the President's supporters so eagerly espouse with starry-eyed devotion.
Are the President's forums more civil and placid in comparison to their raucous congressional counterparts? Clearly, but one should remain mindful of a few facts.
First, despite our partisan passions and philosophical differences, the vast majority of Americans remain respectful of the institution and office of the presidency. Regardless of the individual, there is a level of decorum and propriety that is inherent to the office. He is The President of the United States, a title of unrivaled weight and distinction in both our political system and national history.
Furthermore, beyond these intangible elements and social customs, there is the very real and tangible presence of the highly-trained, well-armed and psychologically-intimidating Secret Service. Should someone be so bold and dim-witted as to attempt to get in the President's face and shout him down, they would quickly find themselves forcefully removed from the venue and facing potential federal charges. The combination of these elements create an imposing atmosphere that discourages the catcalls and confrontations that have greeted Representatives and Senators in the dog days of their August break.
Indeed, despite the earnest hopes of the President's supporters, the fury over health care reform rages unabated. Moreover, in spite of his best efforts, the President's attempts to extinguish the populist wildfire have been for naught. Neither prime time White House press conferences nor intimate town hall meetings have had any impact whatsoever on public opinion towards the overhaul of the nation's health care system or their understanding of the details and components of the competing proposals.
Why is that, you ask? Because the President, much like the nation itself, knows dangerously little of the proposals' specifics. Nor, as demonstrated by his erroneous assertion of an AARP endorsement, does he know who supports what.
How can that be, you ask? Because the President is following and not leading.
Despite the President's references to "his proposals", the White House has failed to produce any bill whatsoever. Indeed, the confusing and contentious proposals at the heart of the conflagration are products of the House and Senate. Adding to the disoriented discourse is the fact the Senate bill remains a work in progress, still in the hands of negotiators in no less than three committees.
In light of the President's deference to the leadership of the House and Senate in drafting the proposals for health care reform, perhaps he and the nation would be better served if the authors of the bills, the committee chairs, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid would take point in leading us through this steamy legislative jungle. Put the Speaker of the "People's House" in front of the people themselves, place the Majority Leader in front of the majority of Americans.
Pelosi and Reid are the elected leaders of the Democratic Party in Congress. They should embrace the principal enshrined in their party's name and eagerly engage in the discourse of our democracy. Allow them to unequivocally demonstrate that the courage of their convictions is equal to their desire for the speedy passage of their proposals. Indeed, if they wish to be the architects of the Republic's future, let them be as forthright as those who laid it's foundation in the past. That dialogue, between the people and their elected representatives is at the very heart of American democracy, after all.
Then again, perhaps that is nothing more than a quaint fable from the fairy tales of yore.
Once upon a time, faithful readers. Once upon a time in America.......
Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see if there is indeed a happy ending to this story.
Published 4 months ago
Friday we took a look at the geo-economic forces driving Moscow and Beijing's aversion to actively joining Washington's drive to pressure Tehran over it's nuclear programs. Today, let's turn our attention to the strategic and geopolitical issues which compel the two to buttress the mullahs with their vetoes in the United Nations' Security Council to the exacerbated dismay of their American counterpart.
As noted in regards to Beijing's position on Pyongyang's nuclear program, China maintains a principled and long-standing apprehension towards internationally-sanctioned actions that infringe on a state's sovereignty. Accordingly, there is a natural inclination to defer to Tehran and defend it even to the brink of Iran's potential withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This conveniently coincides with larger geopolitical concerns including a desire to repay Washington for what at one time appeared to be an attempt to counterbalance a rising China with a nascent strategic partnership with India.
In what initially appeared to be a masterstroke of geopolitical chess, the Bush administration entered into a nuclear technology agreement with New Delhi. In addition to unilaterally absolving India of it's nuclear proliferation pariah status, the move was viewed in Beijing as a not so subtle part of a new American containment policy directed against the Middle Kingdom. Looking across the region, the Chinese saw American allies in Japan, South Korea, Australia and Taiwan, improving relations with Washington's former foes in Vietnam and now a burgeoning strategic relationship with Beijing's nemesis on the subcontinent. The subsequent unspoken quid pro quo is clear - if Washington can extend it's political patronage to New Delhi to the detriment of China's strategic interests, Beijing can do likewise with Tehran at America's expense.
In similar fashion, the Kremlin seeks geopolitical retribution for what it considers to be Washington's recent interloping in it's "near abroad" in Ukraine and Georgia.
Having supported anti-Russian "color revolutions" in the two former Soviet Republics, the Bush administration went as far as suggesting the two be considered for membership in NATO. Extending NATO's reach to the borders of the Russian heartland, the proposal was considered blatantly provocative and a direct threat to Moscow's territorial security. Revealing the limits of America's abilities to defend it's would-be alliance members, the Kremlin took advantage of Georgian adventurism and overconfidence to unequivocally reassert it's influence over it's former comrades last summer. Mercilessly mauling the tiny republic, the Bear displayed both it's military might and political resolve. Hamstrung by a lame duck president in the midst of a presidential campaign, it's military stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan with it's allies divided over what the appropriately inoffensive, symbolic response should be, America watched passively as Russian forces crushed the outnumbered and beleaguered Georgian defenders.
Regardless of it's military victory in the heart of the Caucuses, Moscow feels Washington has meddled in a region vital to it's long term geopolitical interests as well as it's prestige. Accordingly, it now seeks to return the favor. It views the Middle East and Iran as a means to that end.
Having withdrawn as a peer competitor for regional hegemony in the wake of the Soviet Union's collapse, the Kremlin now sees an opportunity to reassert itself in what had essentially become America's exclusive sphere of influence. Nurturing close political, intelligence and economic ties with Tehran, Moscow hopes to ride the cresting wave of it's influence across the region - a wave it believes will bring it lucrative economic and strategic opportunities while washing away the waning remnants of America's geopolitical dominance. This coincides with the belief in Beijing that America will be forced to dramatically scale back it's strategic commitments and military deployments globally over the coming decades, opening up similar opportunities for those poised to take advantage of them.
In the end, the Bear and the Dragon believes a graying Eagle will be forced to return on weakened and fraying wing to the comforts of it's North American nest. In it's wake, they intend to fill the political and strategic void left by it's absence.
That being the case, one wonders why it is in Beijing and Moscow's strategic interest to assist Washington with a recalcitrant and nettlesome Tehran, thereby alleviating some of the very pressures that may ultimately drive it from it's position of geopolitical prominence on the world stage?
The answer is simple - it is not.
Therefore, in the end, they will not.
Why is it the words to one of Joe Walsh's classics keep ringing in my ears, faithful readers? I can't help the feeling, we're living a life of illusion.
Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see if America remains backed up against a wall of confusion.
Published 4 months ago
After Pyongyang's most recent nuclear test and the repeated provocations of it's numerous missile launches, we looked at the underlying issues behind China's reluctance to aggressively sanction their maddening neighbors in the Hermit Kingdom. Now with hardline President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad having been sworn in for a second term, many wonder if the United States and Iran will ever enter into serious dialogue over Tehran's burgeoning nuclear programs. Looking far afield for any potential leverage against Iran, not only does China once again come into play, but Russia enters America's strategic calculus as well. That being the case, the question is - what are the prospects - or lack thereof - for assistance with this sticky Persian wicket from our "dear friends" in Beijing and Moscow?
First, we must recognize that many, including the Chinese themselves, see China as an ascendant power with an increasingly influential role in the international system. With the world's third largest economy, foreign currency and treasury bond reserves well north of a trillion dollars and double-digit annual economic growth and military spending increases, there is little doubt the Chinese dragon has woken from it's self-imposed slumber and is roaring with a pride and self confidence unparalleled in the modern era. Concurrent to Beijing's rise, Moscow seeks to reestablish Russia's position of prominence among the leading ranks of states. In doing so, it hopes to once again bask in the fear, respect and influence the Bear commanded in it's former glory days when it confidently confronted America and it's allies at the height of the bipolar Cold War.
Though the dynamics of the international sphere are fluid, there is the fervent belief among many in the foreign policy intelligentsia in what can be referred to as the Spider Man axiom of international affairs- With great power comes great responsibility. In their minds, Beijing and Moscow have a responsibility as stakeholders and would-be leaders in the international system to assist in the maintenance of it's stability. Part and parcel of that entails working in concert with other leading powers to address threats to the system. Iran, the argument goes for varying reasons in both Liberal and Conservative circles, is just such a gathering threat.
Nonetheless, this begs the question - Why is it in Beijing and Moscow's strategic interests to maintain the stability of an international order constructed by and favoring the United States and it's allies? The answer is simple - it is not.
As is the case so often, one of the primary integers in China and Russia's strategic calculus in regards to Iran is economics. That being said, today we'll look at the economic factors underpinning their reluctance to take substantive action against the recalcitrant regime in Tehran.
Let's begin with China. Beijing, ever taking the long view and mindful of the need to keep it's economic engine well-fueled, views the oil fields of the Middle East as critical to it's national security. As part of a broader global initiative that combines low interest loans, massive infrastructure investment, exclusive access agreements, partnerships with local firms and governments, outright purchases of foreign energy fields and political protection in the international arena and the United Nation's Security Council, China has signed long term development and exclusivity deals with Iran for both oil and natural gas. Beijing places access to reliable sources of energy and the societal stability and politically legitimacy of the Communist Party that is directly linked to a growing economy ahead of America's desire to restrain a rising and potentially nuclear-armed Iran.
In addition to energy, arms also trade hands between China and Iran. For example, the Iranian side of the Persian Gulf is dotted with Chinese-manufactured sea-skimming Silkworm anti-ship missile batteries. In the event hostilities would occur between the US and Iran, odds are the Iranians would launch an aggressive anti-access/area denial offensive that incorporated Silkworm missile follies designed to overcome American close-in naval defenses. The objective would be to drive the Sixth Fleet from the Gulf, thereby limiting it's operational effectiveness and lethality. Should the tactic prove successful, China would reap the windfall profits of both Iranian resupply orders as well as purchases from other states seeking to keep the American navy at arm's length.
Furthermore, the trump card of Chinese held American securities, treasury bonds and currency reserves provides a greater sense of maneuverability and independence of action for Beijing. Accordingly, the Obama administration must be mindful that should it press it's counterparts in the Middle Kingdom too forcefully it places the stability and value of the dollar in jeopardy.
While many rightfully point out that dumping dollars would result in serious self-inflicted wounds for China, the Administration would be well-advised not to take solace in this thought. Given the proverbial alignment of the geopolitical stars with the corresponding concert of the right set of circumstances at the right time, Beijing may well calculate that the pain is worth the long term benefit of toppling the United States from it's lofty perch atop the international system. Though China may willfully cast itself into the heart of the maelstrom, the rationale would be the end of America's preeminence and the inauguration of an era of true multipolarity. Such an event would open the door for China to challenge for the role of regional hegemon, not an unappealing prospect for a nation that believes it fails to receive the respect, deference and influence it is due as one of the world's oldest cultures and civilizations.
Russia, like China, is also a supplier of arms to Iran. From T-72 tanks to MIG-29 fighters, Moscow has sold billions of dollars and hundreds of weapons systems to Tehran over the past two decades. A point of contention between the Pentagon and the Kremlin and of particular concern to both American and Israeli Air Force planners is Russia's agreement to provide Iran with the advanced TOR M-1 air defense missile system. Ostensibly reported to supplement air defense of the Russian-built nuclear reactor at Bushehr, the purchase is a $700 million deal. Accordingly, it is in Russia's economic interests to allow tensions between Washington and Tehran to remain unresolved - tension generates fear, fear spurs arms sales.
As noted previously, Russia has built the nuclear reactor at Bushehr. Seeking to sweeten the pot and retain Moscow's protection in the UN Security Council, Tehran has suggested Bushehr could be the first of up to two dozen potential Russian-built reactors in Iran. Contracts for such an ambitious program would run in the hundreds of billions of dollars and span decades. Needless to say, by comparison, the prospects for similarly profitable opportunities in the US are exceedingly slim.
Finally, there is the issue of natural gas. Seeking significantly enhanced influence over global markets, Moscow has proposed the creation of a producer's group similar to that of OPEC. The foundation of that group would be Russia, Iran and Qatar, who collectively control roughly 55 percent of the world's proven natural gas reserves. That being said, one can hardly expect Moscow to countenance the sanctioning of a crucial partner in what it perceives to be in it's long term economic interest.
While Americans may disparage Beijing and Moscow for cynically placing their own economic interests ahead of global security and stability, one should remain mindful of the fact that the European Union, and the Germans in particular, have similarly been loath to aggressively sanction Tehran for fear of losing lucrative contracts worth billions of Euros. Accordingly, serious observers should be neither shocked or offended when the Chinese and Russians laugh off what might otherwise be biting condemnations were it not for the actions of some of America's closest allies.
Penny for your thoughts, faithful readers? Or perhaps your security?
Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and tune in Monday for a look at the strategic and geopolitical forces behind Beijing and Moscow's rebuffing of Washington's entreaties for assistance with Tehran.
Published 4 months ago
With Sarah Palin having bid adieu to the Governor's Office in the Land of the Midnight Sun, speculation runs rampant about the erstwhile beauty queen's future. In addition to the standard cadre of rancorous reporters and polemic pundits, political pachyderms from the Republican National Committee (RNC) on down have been unable to resist the almost siren-like allure that the moose-hunting matriarch of the Palin clan commands. From book contracts and speaking tours to a television talk show, the centerfold of Playboy and a possible run for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, the plethora of possibilities presented Palin fascinate throngs across the political spectrum. The problem for Republicans, though, is saucy Sarah has become a distraction from the real and pressing work at hand - preparing for the 2010 midterm election.
Speculating about who will be a major party's presidential nominee is natural enough in political and media circles - particularly for a party wandering in the political wilderness, looking for a leader to challenge a president whose personal popularity remains enviably high. The problem, however, is focusing on the '12 presidential race overlooks the importance of the '10 midterm election. Next year's election is critical for the Grand Old Party for a number of reasons. Among them are.........
- 0 and 2 in the last two election cycles, the Republicans desperately need a win. Not only have the Republicans lost the last two cycles, the Democrats have won in convincing fashion. The fact is neither '06 nor '08 were even close. This in turn has lent credibility to questions over the Party's national viability. Pundits ponderously debate whether or not it has become intellectually bankrupt and teeters on the verge of being relegated to a declining regional force. Another loss would only add fuel to the fire and greatly impede it's ability to attract new voters, recruit credible candidates and raise campaign and party contributions.
While many GOP diehards take solace in the historical trend of the party controlling the White House loosing seats in Congress during midterms, they would be well-advised to remain cognizant of the 2007 meeting of lowly Appalachian State verses the mythical might of Michigan. Overlooking the Division I Mountaineers for more formidable foes later in the season, the Top 25 Wolverines were dealt a humiliating upset that still leaves the maize and blue clad faithful shaking their heads in disbelief.
The lesson - don't take anything for granted; focus on the game - or election - at hand, not the one farther down the schedule.
- On the state level, the legislators and governors elected next year will draw the district lines for not only the '12 election cycle, but the next decade. Political ground warfare is fought in the trenches of legislative and congressional districts. Having the ability to draw the lines of those districts to favor your party is, as Mastercard likes to say, priceless. This power literally allows a party to lay the foundation for future electoral success. Accordingly, one of the concrete steps both the RNC and Mrs. Palin can take to increase the Party's prospects for success in '12 is to assiduously support Republican candidates on the state level next year. Successfully planted seeds in '10 will be the roots that bear electoral fruits for years to come.
- The results of next year's election will greatly influence the makeup of the '12 Republican presidential field. If Obama repeats George W. Bush's freshman midterm success of not only defending, but adding seats in Congress next year, the resulting political momentum may well deter candidates who might have otherwise run if they had the base of a Republican victory from which to launch their quest for the White House.
In '08, Obama raised unprecedented amounts of money for both the primary and general election campaigns. After four years in the White House, his constituencies will see their futures as being inextricably vested in returning him to the Oval Office. Accordingly, they will seek to provide him with a more than ample war chest to easily repel his eventual Republican challenger. If the Democrats succeed in putting the Republicans down 0 for 3 next year, the momentum propelling Obama into '12 will create a sense of inevitability to the defense of his incumbency. The end result will be a bandwagon effect that magnetically attracts both voters and campaign contributions. Should the Republicans face this daunting set of circumstances in '12, many potential contenders for the Party's nomination may well choose to forgo being the sacrificial lamb and bide their time till '16.
Conversely, should '10 turnout to be a ballot box bloodbath for Democrats, some Republicans who might otherwise have remained in the stands will jump into the center ring. Accordingly, to attempt to seriously handicap the horse race for the Party's nomination before anyone has even ponied up to the starting gate is the height of folly. Not only that, it is a distraction Republicans can ill-afford at this point.
Nonetheless, for those fearless political gamblers out there, the inside track clearly belongs to.....
Focus, faithful readers. Focus, discipline and good ole fashioned political elbow grease - integral elements to electoral success.
Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see if Republicans have 20/20 political vision or are in critical need of corrective lenses to address a crippling case of hyperopia.
1 - 10 / 21
Previous 1 2 3 Next
Loading
0 comments 
