Maybe I should have made this point sooner. Both of the top candidates in the Democratic primary are imperfect. Barak Obama lacks experience and specific policy proposals. But his message is positive, inspiring, and offers change from 20 years of Bushes and Clintons. Hillary on the other hand has more experience (not as much as she claims though) and apparently has more detailed policy plans for the nation. But she also offers another presidency similar to her husband's. And since his presidency was remarkable only in its divisiveness, it isn't so appealing to bring the pair back to the White House.
In the end then, our decision, as per usual, is between two imperfect candidates. For better or worse, I am going to choose the one that offers some change while inspiring me and my generation. Barak may let us down, but I would rather take a chance on that then travel back in time to the 1990s - a time where our country refused to get involved in genocide, but had no trouble following every detail of a president's sex life or a celebrity murder trial.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Good Ole Kristol
I will try to be quick with this one. Yes, I am writing about Bill Kristol again. While my main argument for supporting his new column at the times was for diversity of view points, I also realized there would likely be a few times when I agreed with him. I didn't realize though that it would be so soon.
When Obama was asked in the most recent Democratic presidential debate, “Would you have seen this kind of greater security in Iraq if we had followed your recommendations to pull the troops out last year?” he didn’t directly address the question. But he volunteered that “much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar Province, Sunni tribes, who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what? — the Americans may be leaving soon. And we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shias. We should start negotiating now.”Kristol is right. The recent improvement in Iraq is due in large part to the troop surge. The role of Sunni Iraqis turning on Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia also contributed greatly to the increased security. The credit belongs with both of those developments and has nothing to do with Democrats vapid positions on Iraq. The only place I would differ with Kristol is that McCain deserves the credit, not Bush. It took Bush four years to realize he needed more troops, McCain knew from the beginning.
But Sunni tribes in Anbar announced in September 2006 that they would join to fight Al Qaeda. That was two months before the Democrats won control of Congress. The Sunni tribes turned not primarily because of fear of the Shiites, but because of their horror at Al Qaeda’s atrocities in Anbar. And the improvements in Anbar could never have been sustained without aggressive American military efforts — efforts that were more effective in 2007 than they had been in 2006, due in part to the addition of the surge forces.
[Edit]
Yesterday, on “Meet the Press,” Hillary Clinton claimed that the Iraqis are changing their ways in part because of the Democratic candidates’ “commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009.” So the Democratic Party, having proclaimed that the war is lost and having sought to withdraw U.S. troops, deserves credit for any progress that may have been achieved in Iraq.
That is truly a fairy tale. And it is driven by a refusal to admit real success because that success has been achieved under the leadership of ... George W. Bush. The horror!
More on Hillary's Experience
There have been two really good articles lately, one by Nicholas Kristof (back from book leave!) and the other by Timothy Noah, that basically get at the experience issue as it relates to Hillary Clinton. The interesting thing though is that after I read their pieces, I read the NY Times article that talks about her experience as First Lady. While the article does have a dismissive tone of her experience, I did come away feeling better about it than I did before. Based on the article, she does seem to have experience from her time as First Lady that Obama hasn't had yet.
That doesn't mean I am changing my vote though. While I do believe more now that she does have an experience edge over Obama, it still isn't significant enough for me to outweigh the negatives. The bottom line is that it still comes down to the fact that I don't want four (or eight) more years of the Clintons. They didn't do a good enough job to deserve more time.
That doesn't mean I am changing my vote though. While I do believe more now that she does have an experience edge over Obama, it still isn't significant enough for me to outweigh the negatives. The bottom line is that it still comes down to the fact that I don't want four (or eight) more years of the Clintons. They didn't do a good enough job to deserve more time.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
The Federal Budget... Mmm...
What you see before you is the president's fiscal year 2008 budget request. Granted, this may be a bit obsolete, since Congress recently passed the 2008 budget, and if it hasn't been signed yet it will be soon because the president isn't expected to veto it. Anyway, since I couldn't find the approved budget, this will do for now for big picture analysis. The budget you see here actually only includes discretionary spending, which is less than 40% of the total budget. Non discretionary spending includes Medicare, Medicaid and social security. I have posted this mostly for any of my libertarian friends who might read my blog. There is a lot of talk about how much federal taxes are and I think that talk should be connected to knowledge of how much each government service costs. On the far right column is percentages of the total discretionary budget.
To be honest, this seems to pose more questions than it answers. But it is a good starting point to understanding where your federal dollars go and how much you could actually expect back if you cut certain programs (my analysis is that you would not get much back) or whether we could increase spending in certain areas. I plan to talk more about the details in the future, so stay tuned. If you want more detail, you can go here and get agency level detail.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Support for the War
I posted a while ago about Hillary Clinton's support for the Iraq War and how her justification seemed to make sense. This NY Times article muddies the water a little. Since I wasn't paying attention as much then as I am now, I find it hard to really understand how the debate played out - whether the resolution was a threat to Saddam or whether people should have reasonable expected Bush to use it to go to war. I don't have the energy right now to argue this through. But read the article, it is brief but interesting.
Praise for LBJ?
I feel a little bad that I have been bashing Hillary a lot lately. But it seems like I keep getting more reasons to. Most recently, she made the following comment, "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done."
There is so much that enrages me about this statement. First, it has long bothered me when people, usually presidential biographers but now Hillary too, give the credit for advances in the civil rights movement to Eisenhower, Kennedy, or Johnson. While it is true we should be thankful that they did the little things they did, the civil rights movement was achieved not because of them, but because of groups like the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, NAACP, and Dr. King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference, among others. Neither Johnson nor Kennedy were marching on Washington, working in the deep south for African-American voter registration, or boycotting buses and lunch counters that wouldn't serve blacks.
Furthermore, Johnson in particular got behind the movement when there was already the momentum for it. The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act, arguably more important, was passed in 1965. This was nearly ten years after the Montgomery Bus Boycott, kicked off after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat.
I know there are political science theories about "pressure cookers" and acting at just the right time, but personally, I think they are bunk. It is a way of celebrating someone who did nothing other than wait until there was popular support. Johnson may have worked hard in 1964 and 1965 for the bills to be passed, but the issue already had popular support - especially among northern whites who were outraged by footage of police attacking non-violent protesters in the south. He didn't use his position as Majority Leader of the Senate in the late 50's for these issues. Because of this, he doesn't deserve the credit for the Civil Rights Act.
This is about more than just one seemingly inappropriate comment though. I think it says something about the Clintons that they would celebrate Johnson's role in the Civil Rights movement. Bill Clinton, as president, seemed to rarely use his control over the agenda to promote big issues that didn't already have strong national support. Two major examples of this are Rwanda and the Balkans - and Somalia too for that matter (yes, it seems that I will never forgive President Clinton for his poor choices in the face of genocide). And Hillary has the same reputation. The point is, I don't want a leader who will be good at recognizing an issue whose time has come. I want a leader that will recognize something like civil rights and fight for it until others are on board. Hillary can't be that person if she is willing to make a comment like the one above.
There is so much that enrages me about this statement. First, it has long bothered me when people, usually presidential biographers but now Hillary too, give the credit for advances in the civil rights movement to Eisenhower, Kennedy, or Johnson. While it is true we should be thankful that they did the little things they did, the civil rights movement was achieved not because of them, but because of groups like the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, NAACP, and Dr. King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference, among others. Neither Johnson nor Kennedy were marching on Washington, working in the deep south for African-American voter registration, or boycotting buses and lunch counters that wouldn't serve blacks.
Furthermore, Johnson in particular got behind the movement when there was already the momentum for it. The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act, arguably more important, was passed in 1965. This was nearly ten years after the Montgomery Bus Boycott, kicked off after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat.
I know there are political science theories about "pressure cookers" and acting at just the right time, but personally, I think they are bunk. It is a way of celebrating someone who did nothing other than wait until there was popular support. Johnson may have worked hard in 1964 and 1965 for the bills to be passed, but the issue already had popular support - especially among northern whites who were outraged by footage of police attacking non-violent protesters in the south. He didn't use his position as Majority Leader of the Senate in the late 50's for these issues. Because of this, he doesn't deserve the credit for the Civil Rights Act.
This is about more than just one seemingly inappropriate comment though. I think it says something about the Clintons that they would celebrate Johnson's role in the Civil Rights movement. Bill Clinton, as president, seemed to rarely use his control over the agenda to promote big issues that didn't already have strong national support. Two major examples of this are Rwanda and the Balkans - and Somalia too for that matter (yes, it seems that I will never forgive President Clinton for his poor choices in the face of genocide). And Hillary has the same reputation. The point is, I don't want a leader who will be good at recognizing an issue whose time has come. I want a leader that will recognize something like civil rights and fight for it until others are on board. Hillary can't be that person if she is willing to make a comment like the one above.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
On Experience
With the presidential elections right now mostly between Obama and Clinton, and since I just got official news that Richardson has dropped out, it seems appropriate to talk about experience. Hillary has spent much of this campaign claiming she has more experience than the rest of the field. What has bothered me was that if we were really voting on experience, we would have chosen Richardson without question. During his not-yet-complete two terms as governor of New Mexico, he was wildly popular, oversaw growth (especially by attracting businesses), cut some taxes, and watched as some major state indicators improved (including education). On top of that, he has been Secretary of Energy, US Ambassador to the UN, and a volunteer negotiator to Iraq, North Korea and Sudan.
But experience isn’t the main criteria. It is popularity / name recognition. Then, once we look at the popular ones, we can compare their experience. Okay, so let’s compare Hillary and Obama. Hillary has served one full term in the Senate, and when the presidential inauguration comes around, she’ll have completed two more years – for a total of eight. Barak Obama will have served four years in the Senate when inauguration day comes around. So Hillary has a small advantage there – nothing worth bragging about.
Before being Senator, Obama served eight years in the Illinois Senate. Hillary served eight years as first lady. So here is my question: Is being First Lady substantially better experience than serving in a state senate? I do think it depends on the First Lady. In this case, I don’t know of any major items that would help her claim of experience except her work on Health Care reform. I don’t want to minimize that just because it failed. I do believe it was valuable experience. But that is the only thing I can think of. Instead, it seems like she is suggesting that she was involved in the decision-making process in some capacity. I don’t doubt that her and Bill discussed policy and politics nor do I doubt that she provided valuable advice. But even so, I am still not convinced that giving good advice to the President when consulted can be used to back up the claim that she has far more experience than Obama.
Any way I analyze it, the three candidates we are left with are all relatively inexperienced. I only wish that people would realize this and we could move past it and focus on the things that really separate these candidates: their ideas, their beliefs, and their character.
But experience isn’t the main criteria. It is popularity / name recognition. Then, once we look at the popular ones, we can compare their experience. Okay, so let’s compare Hillary and Obama. Hillary has served one full term in the Senate, and when the presidential inauguration comes around, she’ll have completed two more years – for a total of eight. Barak Obama will have served four years in the Senate when inauguration day comes around. So Hillary has a small advantage there – nothing worth bragging about.
Before being Senator, Obama served eight years in the Illinois Senate. Hillary served eight years as first lady. So here is my question: Is being First Lady substantially better experience than serving in a state senate? I do think it depends on the First Lady. In this case, I don’t know of any major items that would help her claim of experience except her work on Health Care reform. I don’t want to minimize that just because it failed. I do believe it was valuable experience. But that is the only thing I can think of. Instead, it seems like she is suggesting that she was involved in the decision-making process in some capacity. I don’t doubt that her and Bill discussed policy and politics nor do I doubt that she provided valuable advice. But even so, I am still not convinced that giving good advice to the President when consulted can be used to back up the claim that she has far more experience than Obama.
Any way I analyze it, the three candidates we are left with are all relatively inexperienced. I only wish that people would realize this and we could move past it and focus on the things that really separate these candidates: their ideas, their beliefs, and their character.
On New Hampshire
I wrote a really long post about New Hampshire, and it mostly focused on bashing Hillary. I have decided instead to start anew and this time be more concise. So, as far as New Hampshire goes, I was upset to see Hillary win. I was afraid she won back that air of inevitability, but I don't think that is actually the case yet. Either way, I really don't like Hillary.
There are two main reasons I don't like Hillary. First, if her campaign is a referendum on Bill's presidency (and it has to be if she is claiming her time as first lady as "experience" that sets her apart from Obama), then I don't think they deserve another term in the White House. I can't for the life of me think of anything significant they / he did while President. Besides offering a really nice apology to Rwanda and finally getting involved in the Balkans (better late then never), I am at a loss. There was also welfare reform, which I don't oppose, but I don't know how successful that really was, nor was it his doing if I remember right. Granted the economy was very strong, but I would say he / they did a good job of not ruining the growth as opposed to being responsible for it. So why should we reelect a team that produced very little after eight years in office? The only explanation I can come up with is that we just want someone who won't ruin the world as Bush has done. But I think we need to set our expectations higher.
The other reason I don't like her just has to do with her personality. I realize that a truly informed person wouldn't base their decision on something as nebulous as personality. But in reality, a candidate can be as wonkish as they want, and have lots of detailed policy ideas going into office, but that all washes away once they try dealing with Congress and once the world changes and forces events on them. So in the end, I have to trust the person I am going to vote for; I have to trust that I know their core beliefs and trust that they will make good decisions. That's why I used to support McCain (before it really sunk in how socially conservative he is). And that's why I don't support Hillary. This Maureen Dowd column gets at some of the reasons. But basically I think she is too strategic, and not real enough. (It is true thought that this charge didn't really stick to Bill much because of how charismatic he is.)
Despite how much I am beating up on Hillary, the truth is that I will definitely vote for her in the general election if she wins the primary. But I would much rather see Obama there.
Okay, so much for being brief.
There are two main reasons I don't like Hillary. First, if her campaign is a referendum on Bill's presidency (and it has to be if she is claiming her time as first lady as "experience" that sets her apart from Obama), then I don't think they deserve another term in the White House. I can't for the life of me think of anything significant they / he did while President. Besides offering a really nice apology to Rwanda and finally getting involved in the Balkans (better late then never), I am at a loss. There was also welfare reform, which I don't oppose, but I don't know how successful that really was, nor was it his doing if I remember right. Granted the economy was very strong, but I would say he / they did a good job of not ruining the growth as opposed to being responsible for it. So why should we reelect a team that produced very little after eight years in office? The only explanation I can come up with is that we just want someone who won't ruin the world as Bush has done. But I think we need to set our expectations higher.
The other reason I don't like her just has to do with her personality. I realize that a truly informed person wouldn't base their decision on something as nebulous as personality. But in reality, a candidate can be as wonkish as they want, and have lots of detailed policy ideas going into office, but that all washes away once they try dealing with Congress and once the world changes and forces events on them. So in the end, I have to trust the person I am going to vote for; I have to trust that I know their core beliefs and trust that they will make good decisions. That's why I used to support McCain (before it really sunk in how socially conservative he is). And that's why I don't support Hillary. This Maureen Dowd column gets at some of the reasons. But basically I think she is too strategic, and not real enough. (It is true thought that this charge didn't really stick to Bill much because of how charismatic he is.)
Despite how much I am beating up on Hillary, the truth is that I will definitely vote for her in the general election if she wins the primary. But I would much rather see Obama there.
Okay, so much for being brief.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Finally, a Repalcement for Safire
I was thrilled when I read that the Times was hiring the neo-conservative editor of the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol, to write a weekly column for the paper. I have missed William Safire since he stopped writing political columns, and although I think David Brooks is pretty good, he just feels too moderate to really count as the paper's token conservative. (This quote in a Slate article on the same subject sums it up nice, "Brooks tries to persuade his readers of his views gently, as if he's a guest in the house. Kristol lives to brawl and make enemies.")
The fact is that I think we need someone at the Times who is going to shake up liberals like me. I rarely agreed with William Safire, but it was important to know what he, and others like him, were saying. And most times it made me more sure of my position and got me more riled up against the conservatives like him. But I rarely missed one of his columns.
What I don't get is why people would be upset about it. That there should be at least one conservative voice at a liberal paper seems like common sense. But it seems that there are people that would rather the paper remain pure and only hire liberals (or at worst inoffensive moderate conservatives). This way, they'll never have to actually hear from intelligent conservatives. And painting Kristol as on the fringe is ludicrous. He is a standard neo-con, and his views are pretty widely shared by Republicans - including many of those in the party's presidential primary.
The bottom line is that those that are scared to let the opposition talk do so because they are not confident enough in their own message. They are afraid that by giving him a platform at a liberal newspaper, he'll convince liberals to become neo-cons (sorry, but Friedman already tried that). I have no problem letting Kristol speak because I know that if we make our case right, next time we'll be able to prevent another Iraq. And if not, it's our fault, not Bill Kristol's.
Update: Kristol's first column was on Monday. It neither enraged me nor made me think differently about my opinion. Basically, it was pretty plain. But I am still glad it is there. And I am sure that in the coming Mondays his columns will do what aggressive conservative columns are supposed to do to me - and for me.
The fact is that I think we need someone at the Times who is going to shake up liberals like me. I rarely agreed with William Safire, but it was important to know what he, and others like him, were saying. And most times it made me more sure of my position and got me more riled up against the conservatives like him. But I rarely missed one of his columns.
What I don't get is why people would be upset about it. That there should be at least one conservative voice at a liberal paper seems like common sense. But it seems that there are people that would rather the paper remain pure and only hire liberals (or at worst inoffensive moderate conservatives). This way, they'll never have to actually hear from intelligent conservatives. And painting Kristol as on the fringe is ludicrous. He is a standard neo-con, and his views are pretty widely shared by Republicans - including many of those in the party's presidential primary.
The bottom line is that those that are scared to let the opposition talk do so because they are not confident enough in their own message. They are afraid that by giving him a platform at a liberal newspaper, he'll convince liberals to become neo-cons (sorry, but Friedman already tried that). I have no problem letting Kristol speak because I know that if we make our case right, next time we'll be able to prevent another Iraq. And if not, it's our fault, not Bill Kristol's.
Update: Kristol's first column was on Monday. It neither enraged me nor made me think differently about my opinion. Basically, it was pretty plain. But I am still glad it is there. And I am sure that in the coming Mondays his columns will do what aggressive conservative columns are supposed to do to me - and for me.
Dyersville?
So, I haven't posted here in a while. Since I started blogging at the Human Rights Committee, I haven't made the time to continue blogging here. But since I have a few minutes, I thought I would get down my thoughts about the recent Iowa caucus. (I meant to write about who I supported before the first primaries, but that just didn't happen)
Overall, I am pleased. Right now, I am a fan of Obama, mostly because I am not a fan of the other contenders, or former contenders. I can run through them all if you'd like:
* Biden is now out - but hopefully he'll be considered for secretary of defense or national security council (positions he would be much better at then president)
* Richardson is more experienced than any of the three remaining candidates but his Iraq plan is lunacy - maybe he'll get a good appointment also
* Edwards - I just don't like his tone - his aggressive posturing towards big business and the right is both a turn off to me and I am not convinced it is the most effective strategy for progressive reform
* Hillary - as much as I would like a female president she seems a little too hawkish (I think I have changed over the last few years) and I am never sure whether her positions are genuine or strategic. On top of that, I think she is running on Bill's legacy too much, both to boost the level of "experience" she can claim and to simply hearken back to the good old days of the 1990's.
* Obama - He is young, inspiring, and super intelligent. He may not be a policy wonk, which leaves him a little fuzzy on specific plans, but in the end, I trust his judgment more than any of the other candidates. And right now, that is all I can ask for. Because truly, no matter what someone says in the debates, their positions can change quickly if you elect someone who isn't smart or consistent (think back to Bush's plans for isolationism during the 2000 Presidential debates).
Plus, I think I am ready for a change. I am sick of the Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton cycle.
As for the Republicans, the only one I would maybe consider is McCain. He stood by his belief of increasing troop levels (something he has been saying for years) and that has produced results. But in the end, I still think I want a Democrat for president.
Overall, I am pleased. Right now, I am a fan of Obama, mostly because I am not a fan of the other contenders, or former contenders. I can run through them all if you'd like:
* Biden is now out - but hopefully he'll be considered for secretary of defense or national security council (positions he would be much better at then president)
* Richardson is more experienced than any of the three remaining candidates but his Iraq plan is lunacy - maybe he'll get a good appointment also
* Edwards - I just don't like his tone - his aggressive posturing towards big business and the right is both a turn off to me and I am not convinced it is the most effective strategy for progressive reform
* Hillary - as much as I would like a female president she seems a little too hawkish (I think I have changed over the last few years) and I am never sure whether her positions are genuine or strategic. On top of that, I think she is running on Bill's legacy too much, both to boost the level of "experience" she can claim and to simply hearken back to the good old days of the 1990's.
* Obama - He is young, inspiring, and super intelligent. He may not be a policy wonk, which leaves him a little fuzzy on specific plans, but in the end, I trust his judgment more than any of the other candidates. And right now, that is all I can ask for. Because truly, no matter what someone says in the debates, their positions can change quickly if you elect someone who isn't smart or consistent (think back to Bush's plans for isolationism during the 2000 Presidential debates).
Plus, I think I am ready for a change. I am sick of the Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton cycle.
As for the Republicans, the only one I would maybe consider is McCain. He stood by his belief of increasing troop levels (something he has been saying for years) and that has produced results. But in the end, I still think I want a Democrat for president.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
What Have We Learned?
On the blog for the Human Rights Committee that I am a part of, I talked a little about the situation in Pakistan where General Musharraf has declared emergency rule and imprisoned 500 people from the opposition party. What I want to talk about here though is the broader foreign policy involved.
Throughout our history, we have used our power to judge and influence foreign governments. Countries we support get financial aid, and those we don't can be ignored, sanctioned or sometimes overthrown. What I want to talk about is when and why we support certain governments.
Our main criteria for support include economy (socialist of market), friendliness to US and US businesses, and democracy. Since it is obvious that a country with a market economy, functioning democracy, and friendly relations with US and our businesses would warrant our support, and a lack of all three would not, I will not bother discussing them. What is more interesting to me are the countries in the middle.
In many situations, we have countries that, if democratic would choose either socialism or to spurn the US (I am lumping both of these together because I think they are similar in that by being either socialist or not supporting our interests, a country runs contrary to our interests) and if not democratic would support a market economy and welcome American businesses. The question is, which of these alternatives should the US push for.
To date, we have obviously chosen the later; we are willing to support (if not create) governments that are not democratic - and can in fact be very brutal - so long as they are pro-US and have market economies. I think that if we look to history it is clear that not only is it better for our reputation to support democracies even when they oppose us (like Venezuela), but it is in our interest. Iran is of course the glaring example of this, but we could also look to Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. In fact, the argument could be made that Chavez's anti-American rhetoric is so popular because of our history in South America (Chile, for example).
Unfortunately, our leaders are much better at working for short-term gains instead of focusing on the long term. A leader like Musharraf will pay immediate dividends as a supporter of the GWOT (supposedly) and as always there is less risk in dealing with someone you know as opposed to someone you don't. But in the long term, our reputation and our security will be much better served with a population in Pakistan that remembers that we supported their democracy instead of allowing a military dictator to continue.
I want to finish though by noting that this issue extends beyond Pakistan. Political parties affiliated with strong Islamic groups are making grounds in countries like Palestine and Egypt. I think that we would do better to support the governments that get elected rather than supporting democracy only when it leads to the outcome we favor.
Throughout our history, we have used our power to judge and influence foreign governments. Countries we support get financial aid, and those we don't can be ignored, sanctioned or sometimes overthrown. What I want to talk about is when and why we support certain governments.
Our main criteria for support include economy (socialist of market), friendliness to US and US businesses, and democracy. Since it is obvious that a country with a market economy, functioning democracy, and friendly relations with US and our businesses would warrant our support, and a lack of all three would not, I will not bother discussing them. What is more interesting to me are the countries in the middle.
In many situations, we have countries that, if democratic would choose either socialism or to spurn the US (I am lumping both of these together because I think they are similar in that by being either socialist or not supporting our interests, a country runs contrary to our interests) and if not democratic would support a market economy and welcome American businesses. The question is, which of these alternatives should the US push for.
To date, we have obviously chosen the later; we are willing to support (if not create) governments that are not democratic - and can in fact be very brutal - so long as they are pro-US and have market economies. I think that if we look to history it is clear that not only is it better for our reputation to support democracies even when they oppose us (like Venezuela), but it is in our interest. Iran is of course the glaring example of this, but we could also look to Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. In fact, the argument could be made that Chavez's anti-American rhetoric is so popular because of our history in South America (Chile, for example).
Unfortunately, our leaders are much better at working for short-term gains instead of focusing on the long term. A leader like Musharraf will pay immediate dividends as a supporter of the GWOT (supposedly) and as always there is less risk in dealing with someone you know as opposed to someone you don't. But in the long term, our reputation and our security will be much better served with a population in Pakistan that remembers that we supported their democracy instead of allowing a military dictator to continue.
I want to finish though by noting that this issue extends beyond Pakistan. Political parties affiliated with strong Islamic groups are making grounds in countries like Palestine and Egypt. I think that we would do better to support the governments that get elected rather than supporting democracy only when it leads to the outcome we favor.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
No Bipartisan Revolt?
A friend and I discussed the history of the strong executive in an email exchange last week. It is no secret that the Bush administration has been expanding presidential powers since they took office - mostly through the effort of VP Cheney. As I have thought about this, I often wondered if I would object as much if it were a Democrat seeking greater powers. In fact, my friend got us started on the debate by referencing Doris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rivals. After reading that book, I was glad Lincoln was firmly in charge instead of Congress.
Granted, to some degree that was during a war, where most people would support a much stronger president. Now, Bush claims that there is a Global War on Terrorism, one that is everlasting therefore allowing his expanded powers to be everlasting. Before I start an argument over semantics, lets avoid discussing whether the GWOT is a useful title for our current situation. In fact, for simplicity sake, let's just agree that it is a war (after all, we still use the term cold war - so obviously the word war can apply to diverse situations). Even if we allow it to be labeled a war, we should ask whether it is a war that requires expanded presidential powers.
My personal feeling is that a strong executive, one that is not responsive to Congress, is only necessary under grave threat and for as short a time as possible. Although threats are serious, I don't think it is enough that we should allow a President to choose not to follow Congressional laws. If I am intellectually consistent though, I have to agree that I would say the same thing if a Democrat were in office, which is the question I asked a few paragraphs ago. And I believe that I would argue the same points then. The fact is, Democrat or Republican, no president should issue signing statements that declare they don't really have to follow the law that was just passed (as Bush did with the torture law for example).
What I truly don't understand though is why it hasn't become a bipartisan issue. Why haven't Republicans in Congress bristled at a President that rules without them? I can't fathom how a Republican would allow a president in the same party to make them effectively irrelevant, just because they generally agree (on the torture signing statement, maybe they thought he was doing them a favor - they could support an overwhelmingly popular bill that they didn't agree with while their buddy the President would make it clear he wasn't really going to follow it). But in general he has taken power away from Congress, and Republicans have done little about it. This I find truly baffling.
Granted, to some degree that was during a war, where most people would support a much stronger president. Now, Bush claims that there is a Global War on Terrorism, one that is everlasting therefore allowing his expanded powers to be everlasting. Before I start an argument over semantics, lets avoid discussing whether the GWOT is a useful title for our current situation. In fact, for simplicity sake, let's just agree that it is a war (after all, we still use the term cold war - so obviously the word war can apply to diverse situations). Even if we allow it to be labeled a war, we should ask whether it is a war that requires expanded presidential powers.
My personal feeling is that a strong executive, one that is not responsive to Congress, is only necessary under grave threat and for as short a time as possible. Although threats are serious, I don't think it is enough that we should allow a President to choose not to follow Congressional laws. If I am intellectually consistent though, I have to agree that I would say the same thing if a Democrat were in office, which is the question I asked a few paragraphs ago. And I believe that I would argue the same points then. The fact is, Democrat or Republican, no president should issue signing statements that declare they don't really have to follow the law that was just passed (as Bush did with the torture law for example).
What I truly don't understand though is why it hasn't become a bipartisan issue. Why haven't Republicans in Congress bristled at a President that rules without them? I can't fathom how a Republican would allow a president in the same party to make them effectively irrelevant, just because they generally agree (on the torture signing statement, maybe they thought he was doing them a favor - they could support an overwhelmingly popular bill that they didn't agree with while their buddy the President would make it clear he wasn't really going to follow it). But in general he has taken power away from Congress, and Republicans have done little about it. This I find truly baffling.
Elect Rudy, Get 4 More Years of Bush
I actually think my headline is a bit of an understatement. Recent quotes from Rudy suggest that many of his foreign policy positions are more hard-lined, and therefore at this point worse for our country, than President Bush's policies. First, Guliani thinks water boarding might not be torture depending on how it is carried out (apparently he doesn't realize that it is a specific procedure carried out in a specific way). Thankfully, McCain responded and set him straight. Also, Rudy has made it clear that he supports Israel completely and considers Palestine to be nothing but terrorists. And he says that history will judge the Iraq War as the right decision. Finally, his rhetoric on Iran has been more belligerent than Bush, if you can believe that.
All of this is terrible policy. Aggressive interrogation practices don't necessarily yield better information and on top of that, it further hurts our image abroad. A hard-lined support for Israel does the same thing. In fact, if one wanted to increase anti-Americanism and increase the number of people willing to do us harm, they would be hard-pressed to think of two better ways of doing it. Bush, thanks to Secretary Rice, has finally realized that our total support for Israel is one of the main rallying points of anti-Americanism in the Middle East.
Rudy believing that invading Iraq was the right decision means he would likely make a similar decision if he is president. Which brings us to Iran, where the harsh rhetoric only strengthens their president by allowing him to talk about America instead of Iran's rapidly declining economy at least, and at most could lead us to a war with them (a war that would cost us).
My guess is that since Rudy knows he won't win the primary by talking about his views on gun control, gay rights, or abortion, he figures the best thing he can do is reinforce his credentials as the President of 9/11 - namely showing how tough he is. It depresses me how much I see this happening during the primaries. The problem is that I think he probably believes what he is saying. And the last thing we need is four years of foreign policy that is more aggressive than Bush's - especially when he doesn't seem to have learned any lessons from Bush.
All of this is terrible policy. Aggressive interrogation practices don't necessarily yield better information and on top of that, it further hurts our image abroad. A hard-lined support for Israel does the same thing. In fact, if one wanted to increase anti-Americanism and increase the number of people willing to do us harm, they would be hard-pressed to think of two better ways of doing it. Bush, thanks to Secretary Rice, has finally realized that our total support for Israel is one of the main rallying points of anti-Americanism in the Middle East.
Rudy believing that invading Iraq was the right decision means he would likely make a similar decision if he is president. Which brings us to Iran, where the harsh rhetoric only strengthens their president by allowing him to talk about America instead of Iran's rapidly declining economy at least, and at most could lead us to a war with them (a war that would cost us).
My guess is that since Rudy knows he won't win the primary by talking about his views on gun control, gay rights, or abortion, he figures the best thing he can do is reinforce his credentials as the President of 9/11 - namely showing how tough he is. It depresses me how much I see this happening during the primaries. The problem is that I think he probably believes what he is saying. And the last thing we need is four years of foreign policy that is more aggressive than Bush's - especially when he doesn't seem to have learned any lessons from Bush.
Can't Manage
If we are going to be honest we need to admit that the Democrats have been such a letdown in Congress. And I don't mean this from a policy perspective. Most of the things they have fought for I agree with (increased funding for some social welfare priorities for example). But from an effectiveness perspective they have been useless. On Iraq they have done very little that is meaningful and even their comments are vapid and useless.
Even worse though has been their handling of the budget. Part of the reason Democrats were swept into power in Congress is because Republicans, who are supposed to be fiscally responsible, were seen as wasteful. But now, because Democrats can't agree on a budget and can't decide how to proceed in the face of Bush's veto threats, Republicans are once again able to cast themselves as protectors of restrained spending and Democrats are once again given the label "tax and spend". The 2006 elections were a gift, and the current leadership of the party is letting that gift spoil.
Even worse though has been their handling of the budget. Part of the reason Democrats were swept into power in Congress is because Republicans, who are supposed to be fiscally responsible, were seen as wasteful. But now, because Democrats can't agree on a budget and can't decide how to proceed in the face of Bush's veto threats, Republicans are once again able to cast themselves as protectors of restrained spending and Democrats are once again given the label "tax and spend". The 2006 elections were a gift, and the current leadership of the party is letting that gift spoil.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
My New Venture
Although I haven't been posting here nearly as much as I want to, I will be posting even less here in the future. I have joined a human rights advocacy committee - part of the Young Professionals for International Cooperation - and I started a blog for that committee. Anything I write about human rights will be posted there. I hope you will check it out. I will continue to post some things here related to domestic policy and parts of foreign policy that don't quite fit under human rights.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
To Rebel?
There was an article in the NY Times yesterday where a reporter was sitting in on debates between officers in the US Army. The debates were about the Iraq War and whether generals should have said more in the lead-up to the war about troop levels. The main argument in the debate seems to fall around when you are supposed to follow orders and when you should speak out in hopes of changing policy. I have been thinking about their arguments recently, because it both is meaningful in terms of having civilian control of the military but also because it applies to my work as a public administrator.
For many liberals, this issue doesn't seem hard at first. The generals should have spoken out and prevented the war from happening (or calling for many more troops, which would have had the same effect). One of the officers in the article though mentioned that if the military prevented any policy it disagreed with by fighting it in the press, the civilian leaders would no longer be in control of the military. Imagine a different scenario where a president wants to get involved to end a genocide but his or her military leadership drums up opposition to prevent it. This is unfathomable; Colin Powell was opposed to intervening in Bosnia.
This issue plays itself out in settings outside the military as well. I was trained in public administration, and one of the issues we talked about was when you are supposed to go along with an administration you don't agree with, and when you should resist or resign / quit. As civil servants, this is a big issue. Of course in class we watched a video about the Japanese Ambassador to Germany who signed papers allowing many Jews to leave Germany. This is a grand example, and although it was tremendously brave, doesn't help with the less obvious examples. Many of us might think Iraq is an obvious example, but we can think about working for EPA for example under President Bush. Liberals working there might want to fight his policies that are ruining our environment, but if everyone followed that lead, president's would be powerless and civil servants would run government. At some point, people have to be willing to work for a leader even if they don't agree with him or her.
The point of this rambling post is that we need to be careful what we wish for. A more outspoken military leadership might prevent meaningful interventions (or otherwise stand in the way of good policy).
For many liberals, this issue doesn't seem hard at first. The generals should have spoken out and prevented the war from happening (or calling for many more troops, which would have had the same effect). One of the officers in the article though mentioned that if the military prevented any policy it disagreed with by fighting it in the press, the civilian leaders would no longer be in control of the military. Imagine a different scenario where a president wants to get involved to end a genocide but his or her military leadership drums up opposition to prevent it. This is unfathomable; Colin Powell was opposed to intervening in Bosnia.
This issue plays itself out in settings outside the military as well. I was trained in public administration, and one of the issues we talked about was when you are supposed to go along with an administration you don't agree with, and when you should resist or resign / quit. As civil servants, this is a big issue. Of course in class we watched a video about the Japanese Ambassador to Germany who signed papers allowing many Jews to leave Germany. This is a grand example, and although it was tremendously brave, doesn't help with the less obvious examples. Many of us might think Iraq is an obvious example, but we can think about working for EPA for example under President Bush. Liberals working there might want to fight his policies that are ruining our environment, but if everyone followed that lead, president's would be powerless and civil servants would run government. At some point, people have to be willing to work for a leader even if they don't agree with him or her.
The point of this rambling post is that we need to be careful what we wish for. A more outspoken military leadership might prevent meaningful interventions (or otherwise stand in the way of good policy).
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Myanmar
The most recent article I read about Myanmar turned my anger into depression. It seems that the military is a big part of the culture, and decreasing its role seems unlikely. At the same time though, it shouldn't be impossible to give it a role similar to ours. The need for a strong US military is rarely questioned in mainstream America. But it doesn't rule the country or violently crack down on protests (although the police does sometimes).
What's worse is that it seems like sanctions won't do a thing, and there is little hope that any UN or American peacekeeping force would be tolerated. So, with the help of China, we'll probably get some concessions from the military junta that makes it look like it is opening up, and then soon enough things will go back to normal - where normal means monks get beaten and arrested when they call for democracy.
UPDATE:
You have to love The Onion, and not just for its crude but random humor. It's political satire is so often spot on. Take this one for example:
First Lady Laura Bush said Tuesday that the White House was ready to slap sanctions on the Burmese military government if it did not move toward democracy. What do you think?
Ian Brannon,
High School Administrator
"I didn't care about Darfur. Good luck getting me to give a shit about Burma."
So true - and so depressing. Although the fact that Laura Bush is talking about it suggests that the American public is likely to be more sympathetic towards monks in Burma than Africans in Sudan.
What's worse is that it seems like sanctions won't do a thing, and there is little hope that any UN or American peacekeeping force would be tolerated. So, with the help of China, we'll probably get some concessions from the military junta that makes it look like it is opening up, and then soon enough things will go back to normal - where normal means monks get beaten and arrested when they call for democracy.
UPDATE:
You have to love The Onion, and not just for its crude but random humor. It's political satire is so often spot on. Take this one for example:
First Lady Laura Bush said Tuesday that the White House was ready to slap sanctions on the Burmese military government if it did not move toward democracy. What do you think?
Ian Brannon,
High School Administrator
"I didn't care about Darfur. Good luck getting me to give a shit about Burma."
So true - and so depressing. Although the fact that Laura Bush is talking about it suggests that the American public is likely to be more sympathetic towards monks in Burma than Africans in Sudan.
Our New Best Friend
Many conservatives were supportive of Bush's "go-it-alone" approach to foreign policy. Unfortunately, it looks like the result was that we traded partners like France, Germany, and the UN for China. I wonder if that was part of the plan.
Granted, part of the reason they are a partner is they have the leverage we need in dealing with countries like North Korea, Iran, and Myanmar; leverage that we wouldn't have going through the UN. Still, this (along with the Iraq War) shows the limits of "Cowboy diplomacy".
I would say that it is comforting to see China being so active, but in the end, they are doing it because it is in their interest.
Granted, part of the reason they are a partner is they have the leverage we need in dealing with countries like North Korea, Iran, and Myanmar; leverage that we wouldn't have going through the UN. Still, this (along with the Iraq War) shows the limits of "Cowboy diplomacy".
I would say that it is comforting to see China being so active, but in the end, they are doing it because it is in their interest.
No Hope in Congo
Summary:
There has been an epidemic of rapes recently in the Congo. The Rwandan genocide of 1994 may be one of the causes.
I wonder if President Clinton realizes the long term consequences of our acceptance of the genocide in Rwanda. Sure, he has apologized for it, and maybe he thinks he really meant it. But if he thinks the situation is behind him - and behind the world - he is wrong.
In Congo, there is a serious epidemic of rape (an odd phrase since one rape is too many, and two might be enough for me to consider it an epidemic). Here is the NY Times on the story: According to the United Nations, 27,000 sexual assaults were reported in 2006 in South Kivu Province alone, and that may be just a fraction of the total number across the country. We know that women have been victims during conflict; rapes were a part of the genocide in Rwanda and are a major concern in Darfur and refugee camps for those feeling the violence in Darfur. But the sheer numbers in the Congo, particularly the Eastern region is horrifying.
The reason I link this to the genocide in Rwanda is that one of the groups carrying out the rapes were members of the Hutu militias responsible for the genocide. Since then they have apparently fled Rwanda into Congo. The NY Times article suggests that the psychological damage from the genocide might be playing a part in the particular savageness of these crimes.
To me, the bigger reason is the lawlessness in the region. The largest UN peacekeeping mission is in Congo(17,000 troops), but it isn't nearly big enough. Until the world gets seriously invested in protecting the victims of conflict and post-conflict situations, we will continue to hear horrifying stories like this.
There has been an epidemic of rapes recently in the Congo. The Rwandan genocide of 1994 may be one of the causes.
I wonder if President Clinton realizes the long term consequences of our acceptance of the genocide in Rwanda. Sure, he has apologized for it, and maybe he thinks he really meant it. But if he thinks the situation is behind him - and behind the world - he is wrong.
In Congo, there is a serious epidemic of rape (an odd phrase since one rape is too many, and two might be enough for me to consider it an epidemic). Here is the NY Times on the story: According to the United Nations, 27,000 sexual assaults were reported in 2006 in South Kivu Province alone, and that may be just a fraction of the total number across the country. We know that women have been victims during conflict; rapes were a part of the genocide in Rwanda and are a major concern in Darfur and refugee camps for those feeling the violence in Darfur. But the sheer numbers in the Congo, particularly the Eastern region is horrifying.
The reason I link this to the genocide in Rwanda is that one of the groups carrying out the rapes were members of the Hutu militias responsible for the genocide. Since then they have apparently fled Rwanda into Congo. The NY Times article suggests that the psychological damage from the genocide might be playing a part in the particular savageness of these crimes.
To me, the bigger reason is the lawlessness in the region. The largest UN peacekeeping mission is in Congo(17,000 troops), but it isn't nearly big enough. Until the world gets seriously invested in protecting the victims of conflict and post-conflict situations, we will continue to hear horrifying stories like this.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Not Interested
I've got to say, I don't really understand all the attention we give to President Ahmadinejad of Iran. He is far weaker in his own government than we make him out to be. So why do we pay so much attention to him, when all it does is make him more popular and make him look strong? It isn't smart strategy. If I were the Bush administration, I would make sure to say things like, "We are disappointed that the President of Iran is saying this, but in the end, we listen to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for information about the policy direction of Iran." It also makes us look dumb to care so much about what he says because it makes us look like we don't know that he is mostly powerless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)