Normally, I would post only one item today, but a story in the Washington Post this morning put such fire in my belly that another seemed to be in order. The original post on ASIAN ARTIFACTS OF WORLD WAR II follows the one on "exceptionalism".
-0-0-0-0-
ARROGANCE OF "EXCEPTIONALISM"
While the media attention today is on WikiLeaks and the possible effects on U.S. diplomacy, the Washington Post carried a far more troublesome article, "American exceptionalism: an old idea and a new political battle."
The heart of the "exceptionalism" idea is that our country is superior to other countries in the world and, adding on, to deny that means you are both un-American and godless. A few quotes from the article:
"The reorientation away from a celebration of American exceptionalism is misguided and bankrupt." -- Mitt Romney past and likely future candidate for President in his pre-campaign book.
"America the Exceptional" -- title of a chapter in Sarah Palin's new book.
"To deny American exceptionalism is in essence to deny the heart and soul of this nation."-- Mike Huckabee another past and likely future candidate for President in an interview.
This sampling of a new era of jingoism/chauvinism has two things in common: 1) they are from very conservative right wing Republicans who wannabe the next President; and 2) they are barely disguised attacks on President Obama who speaks of the country's greatness but has shied away from the term "exceptional" in defining this country's place in the world. As the various Republican wannabes gear up their campaigns, they will be competing for whatever the superlative of "exceptionalism" may be (perhaps "exceptionalismest"), egged on by right wing talk show cheerleaders such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. "Exceptionalism" ("E") will take its place alongside God, belief in God, God's work, etc., as a theme already prominent in right wing rhetoric.
There is no question that the United States is a superpower and as such has an international responsibility that exceeds that of most other nations, a responsibility that must include restraint and sensitivity, not just hubris. But to think of ourselves as exceptional is to equate our self-interest with what is good for the rest of the world, a meaning implicit in "E". That is arrogant. Other nations have their own self-interests and they are not subordinate to ours, a distinction we often ignore. This is particularly evident when we translate our "E" and arrogance into military adventures such as Iraq. There, in pursuit of the mythical weapons of mass destruction and in seeking to implant our model of democracy in historically inhospitable soil, we have not only failed or are failing in both objectives but also have left the entire region more vulnerable to our own version of the "great satan"--Iran. Ditto for much of what we have done and are doing in Afghanistan.
Here it is time for another quote to balance the jingoism of "E". This is from the book "Arrogance of Power" written by the late Senator William Fulbright in the context of the massive U.S. intervention in Vietnam in the l960s.
"Power tends to confuse itself with virtue and a great nation is particularly susceptible to the idea that its power is a sign of God's favor, conferring upon it a special responsibility for other nations -- to make them richer and happier and wiser, to remake them, that is, in its own shining image. Power confuses itself with virtue and tends also to take itself for omnipotence. Once imbued with the idea of a mission, a great nation easily assumes that it has the means as well as the duty to do God's work."
The most frightening point of Fulbright's argument is what he sees as the U.S., in pursuing political, military, and ideological objectives, is prone to also see itself in the Biblical role of doing God's work. Onward Christian soldiers. That is, we are God's chosen nation and as such we have been annointed to go forth and do what we want knowing we have his blessing. Thus does the arrogance of "E" wrap itself in messianic robes and pronounces the non-believers of "E" as un-American and godless.
The culture wars within this country and abroad have become ugly enough, as evident in the growing anti-Muslim attitudes in the U.S. Now this newly emboldened "E" view held by the right wing threatens to poison our relations even with our friends. The WikiLeaks will create some difficulties in pursuing our diplomacy, but "E" is a far more insidious toxin that is likely to seep into our relations in the international community. "Exceptionalism" diminishes us.
Monday, November 29, 2010
ASIAN ARTIFACTS OF WORLD WAR II
The current crisis in Korea is a good reminder of the grip that World War II and the Cold War continue to have on international politics. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in l990, the 45-year old Cold War was considered at an end. But the latest North-South Korea shooting confrontation presents the occasion to revisit important leftover parts of both wars.
When Japan surrendered in l945, the Korean peninsula was divided at the 38th parallel with the northern half occupied by Soviet Union forces and the south by the United States. It was intended to be a temporary division with the two parts to be unified as a joint trusteeship following a national election. As we know, that never worked out.
At the end of World War II, the Cold War was already underway with disagreements on the future of eastern Europe, occupied by Soviet troops. With the further freezing of the Cold War, the Soviet half of Korea refused to participate in the unification election held in l948, so it was held only in the U.S.-occupied southern half. The result was a dictatorship in the north with the leadership in 2010 soon to be passed to the third generation of the same family. In the south a democracy emerged, although it has had its ups and downs with democratic governance. Over the 65 years of division there has been a major North-South war and numerous lesser but sometimes serious confrontations. The current one is considered the most dangerous since the Korean War ended with an armistice in l953.
So remnants of World War II and the Cold War live on in that part of the world.
Since this post is a rummaging around in some residue of those wars, it is also worthwhile noting that there is another leftover piece in this same part of the world. Japan and Russia still have not signed a peace treaty ending World War II between the two countries, although they have not resorted to armed conflict as has occurred in Korea.
In early 1945, a U.S., British, Soviet Union summit meeting was held at Yalta, in the Soviet Crimea. One of the things agreed on at that conference was that Russia would go to war with Japan three months after the war in Europe ended. Germany surrendered in early May and the Soviet Union declared war on Japan in early August, on schedule. Besides the Yalta agreement, the Soviets were also motivated to get into the war quickly after the U.S. dropped its first atomic bomb on Japan, thereby hastening the likelihood of an early Japanese surrender. The second A-bomb was dropped on August 9, the same day the Soviets invaded Manchuria, thus guaranteeing that it would be in on getting some of the spoils of war.
Besides sending troops into Manchuria, another of its first moves was to occupy the northernmost part of Japan, the Kuril Islands. Soon after the occupation the Soviets expelled the 17,000 Japanese residents of the islands. Japan wants the Kurils back, but Russia has repeatedly said no. The two countries have signed an agreement to end the state of war, but conclusion of a permanent peace treaty has been elusive because of the dispute over the islands.
In sum, World War II and the subsequent Cold War continue to leave their imprint. In the case of Korea, this has meant off and on military confrontation. For Japan and Russia, armed conflict has not occurred nor is it likely to, but the dispute over the Kurils has left some persistent,strained relations.
When Japan surrendered in l945, the Korean peninsula was divided at the 38th parallel with the northern half occupied by Soviet Union forces and the south by the United States. It was intended to be a temporary division with the two parts to be unified as a joint trusteeship following a national election. As we know, that never worked out.
At the end of World War II, the Cold War was already underway with disagreements on the future of eastern Europe, occupied by Soviet troops. With the further freezing of the Cold War, the Soviet half of Korea refused to participate in the unification election held in l948, so it was held only in the U.S.-occupied southern half. The result was a dictatorship in the north with the leadership in 2010 soon to be passed to the third generation of the same family. In the south a democracy emerged, although it has had its ups and downs with democratic governance. Over the 65 years of division there has been a major North-South war and numerous lesser but sometimes serious confrontations. The current one is considered the most dangerous since the Korean War ended with an armistice in l953.
So remnants of World War II and the Cold War live on in that part of the world.
Since this post is a rummaging around in some residue of those wars, it is also worthwhile noting that there is another leftover piece in this same part of the world. Japan and Russia still have not signed a peace treaty ending World War II between the two countries, although they have not resorted to armed conflict as has occurred in Korea.
In early 1945, a U.S., British, Soviet Union summit meeting was held at Yalta, in the Soviet Crimea. One of the things agreed on at that conference was that Russia would go to war with Japan three months after the war in Europe ended. Germany surrendered in early May and the Soviet Union declared war on Japan in early August, on schedule. Besides the Yalta agreement, the Soviets were also motivated to get into the war quickly after the U.S. dropped its first atomic bomb on Japan, thereby hastening the likelihood of an early Japanese surrender. The second A-bomb was dropped on August 9, the same day the Soviets invaded Manchuria, thus guaranteeing that it would be in on getting some of the spoils of war.
Besides sending troops into Manchuria, another of its first moves was to occupy the northernmost part of Japan, the Kuril Islands. Soon after the occupation the Soviets expelled the 17,000 Japanese residents of the islands. Japan wants the Kurils back, but Russia has repeatedly said no. The two countries have signed an agreement to end the state of war, but conclusion of a permanent peace treaty has been elusive because of the dispute over the islands.
In sum, World War II and the subsequent Cold War continue to leave their imprint. In the case of Korea, this has meant off and on military confrontation. For Japan and Russia, armed conflict has not occurred nor is it likely to, but the dispute over the Kurils has left some persistent,strained relations.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
THINGS TO BE THANKFUL FOR
Since we are on the eve of Thanksgiving Day, it seemed appropriate to express thanks to people for their singular contribution to the knowledge and welfare of the body politic.
John Boehner -- for giving new meaning to the first law of politics: You have to know how to fake sincerity.
Mitch McConnell -- for putting on his Darth Vadar mask so we can see who he really is and what he stands for.
Mamoud Ahmadinejad -- that he doesn't have any more syllables in his name.
Hamid Karzai -- that his efforts to hide his corruption behind a benign countenance are futile.
President Obama -- that MAYBE he has finally had at least a dim epiphany about bipartisanship. (Couldn't hedge it any more than that.)
Hillary Clinton -- for not putting anything in writing about her future political plans.
Joe Miller -- thank God the Tea Party loved him.
Christine O'Donnell -- ditto her.
Sarah Palin -- for the TV reality show, Saturday Night Live.
Tea Party -- for illuminating what is meant by the "dark side".
Glenn Beck -- whose next book should be "Crying All the Way to the Bank Wrapped in a Flag".
Gene Autry -- for living on in old westerns for us old folk.
-0-0-0-0-
John Boehner -- for giving new meaning to the first law of politics: You have to know how to fake sincerity.
Mitch McConnell -- for putting on his Darth Vadar mask so we can see who he really is and what he stands for.
Mamoud Ahmadinejad -- that he doesn't have any more syllables in his name.
Hamid Karzai -- that his efforts to hide his corruption behind a benign countenance are futile.
President Obama -- that MAYBE he has finally had at least a dim epiphany about bipartisanship. (Couldn't hedge it any more than that.)
Hillary Clinton -- for not putting anything in writing about her future political plans.
Joe Miller -- thank God the Tea Party loved him.
Christine O'Donnell -- ditto her.
Sarah Palin -- for the TV reality show, Saturday Night Live.
Tea Party -- for illuminating what is meant by the "dark side".
Glenn Beck -- whose next book should be "Crying All the Way to the Bank Wrapped in a Flag".
Gene Autry -- for living on in old westerns for us old folk.
-0-0-0-0-
Monday, November 22, 2010
GOP: PUTTING THE TORCH TO EVERYTHING
Economist Paul Krugman called them a part of the "Axis of Depression".
Senator Charles Schumer attacked their "scorched earth policy".
If you haven't already guessed, the "them" and "their" are the Republicans who have adopted a take-no-prisoners strategy to gain full control of the Congress and the White House in 2012. A quick recap.
A part of that strategy has been in place for the last two years with the GOP goal to win back the Congress in the midterm elections three weeks ago. That goal was partially successful with the GOP taking more than 60 seats from the Democrats in the House, far more than enough to make John Boehner the next likely Speaker. And they came close in the Senate, reducing the Democratic majority from 59 seats (including two independents) to 53. The Republican victory was greatly aided by the state of the American economy. A further big boost for the GOP came from the Tea Party movement which exploited the struggling economic picture with heated campaign rhetoric about the need to cut spending, reduce the deficit, halt the liberal/socialist Democratic threat to the Constitution, and stop the intrusion of big government into our lives.
Within Congress this was translated into virtual bloc voting by GOP lawmakers against various Democratic spending and tax proposals aimed at stimulating economic recovery. That partisanship was aimed not only at winning the midterm elections, but also to lay the groundwork for making Obama a one-term President in 2012. To achieve the GOP political goals, they supported nothing that would give Obama and congressional Democrats legislative successes, even if it meant prolonging economic problems. The GOP mantra for economic recovery was and remains cut spending and give more tax breaks for the upper income and business. With Congress' current special session, the "scorched earth policy" has been extended to foreign policy with enough GOP opposition to block ratification of the nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia.
That brings us to Krugman's reference to the GOP being part of the "Axis of Depression". The Axis imagery was most recently used by President George W. Bush with his "Axis of Evil" which included Iran, Iraq (before our invasion), and North Korea. Krugman has freshened the term to include a strange mixture of partners--China, Germany, and the GOP. The new Axis formed around the Federal Reserve's program to purchase $600 billion of bonds.
So, not content with the legislative obstructionist strategy, Republicans inside and outside of Congress have come out in opposition to the Fed program. The aim of the Fed is to buy the bonds to help drive down interest rates and thus contribute to economic growth by encouraging consumers to borrow and spend more. It's an effort to stimulate the economy through monetary policy since fiscal stimulus remedies are blocked in Congress by the GOP.
The Fed program also has the effect of increasing money supply and in doing so it has the collateral effect of devaluing the dollar. It is the devaluation effect that has China and Germany in a tizzy. Both have large export surpluses and a devalued dollar is seen as a threat because it may boost American exports and thus make us more competitive in world trade. In short, China and Germany see the Fed purchase as a threat to their economic self-interest. Fair enough, if you don't consider China's currency manipulations to preserve their exports.
But the GOP opposition to the fed is based on a far less credible self-interest argument, the threat of inflation because of the increase in money supply. That argument sounds hollow indeed. Right now we have a very low inflation rate and with our economy likely to limp along for some time, inflation hardly seems to be a near-term problem. In fact, to some economists, the problem is not inflation, but deflation as experienced by Japan in the 1990s. In the absence of a credible case for the threat of inflation, it appears that the real GOP concern is that the Fed purchase may indeed help economic recovery, with political benefits accruing to the Democrats.
So Schumer's "scorched earth" label for GOP strategy, based on Republican obstructionism in Congress, is too narrow in scope. The Republicans have now extended the reach of their legislative opposition/obstructionism to anything that will help the Democrats, including the Fed's monetary policy tools.
Senator Charles Schumer attacked their "scorched earth policy".
If you haven't already guessed, the "them" and "their" are the Republicans who have adopted a take-no-prisoners strategy to gain full control of the Congress and the White House in 2012. A quick recap.
A part of that strategy has been in place for the last two years with the GOP goal to win back the Congress in the midterm elections three weeks ago. That goal was partially successful with the GOP taking more than 60 seats from the Democrats in the House, far more than enough to make John Boehner the next likely Speaker. And they came close in the Senate, reducing the Democratic majority from 59 seats (including two independents) to 53. The Republican victory was greatly aided by the state of the American economy. A further big boost for the GOP came from the Tea Party movement which exploited the struggling economic picture with heated campaign rhetoric about the need to cut spending, reduce the deficit, halt the liberal/socialist Democratic threat to the Constitution, and stop the intrusion of big government into our lives.
Within Congress this was translated into virtual bloc voting by GOP lawmakers against various Democratic spending and tax proposals aimed at stimulating economic recovery. That partisanship was aimed not only at winning the midterm elections, but also to lay the groundwork for making Obama a one-term President in 2012. To achieve the GOP political goals, they supported nothing that would give Obama and congressional Democrats legislative successes, even if it meant prolonging economic problems. The GOP mantra for economic recovery was and remains cut spending and give more tax breaks for the upper income and business. With Congress' current special session, the "scorched earth policy" has been extended to foreign policy with enough GOP opposition to block ratification of the nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia.
That brings us to Krugman's reference to the GOP being part of the "Axis of Depression". The Axis imagery was most recently used by President George W. Bush with his "Axis of Evil" which included Iran, Iraq (before our invasion), and North Korea. Krugman has freshened the term to include a strange mixture of partners--China, Germany, and the GOP. The new Axis formed around the Federal Reserve's program to purchase $600 billion of bonds.
So, not content with the legislative obstructionist strategy, Republicans inside and outside of Congress have come out in opposition to the Fed program. The aim of the Fed is to buy the bonds to help drive down interest rates and thus contribute to economic growth by encouraging consumers to borrow and spend more. It's an effort to stimulate the economy through monetary policy since fiscal stimulus remedies are blocked in Congress by the GOP.
The Fed program also has the effect of increasing money supply and in doing so it has the collateral effect of devaluing the dollar. It is the devaluation effect that has China and Germany in a tizzy. Both have large export surpluses and a devalued dollar is seen as a threat because it may boost American exports and thus make us more competitive in world trade. In short, China and Germany see the Fed purchase as a threat to their economic self-interest. Fair enough, if you don't consider China's currency manipulations to preserve their exports.
But the GOP opposition to the fed is based on a far less credible self-interest argument, the threat of inflation because of the increase in money supply. That argument sounds hollow indeed. Right now we have a very low inflation rate and with our economy likely to limp along for some time, inflation hardly seems to be a near-term problem. In fact, to some economists, the problem is not inflation, but deflation as experienced by Japan in the 1990s. In the absence of a credible case for the threat of inflation, it appears that the real GOP concern is that the Fed purchase may indeed help economic recovery, with political benefits accruing to the Democrats.
So Schumer's "scorched earth" label for GOP strategy, based on Republican obstructionism in Congress, is too narrow in scope. The Republicans have now extended the reach of their legislative opposition/obstructionism to anything that will help the Democrats, including the Fed's monetary policy tools.
Friday, November 19, 2010
DISAPPEARANCE OF THE MIDDLE: BIPOLARIZATION OF POLITICS
Since the midterm elections more than two weeks ago, I have been looking for a shorthand way of how to think about our politics--where it is and where we are heading. That took me to two quotes.
"I won" is how President Obama put it to Republican congressional leaders during discussion of tax policy at a White House meeting in early 2009. "Mission Accomplished" was the wording on the banner when former President George W. Bush landed aboard an aircraft carrier shortly after toppling Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003. For both Obama and Bush, the two expressions carried the implicit add on, "end of story". As both came to realize, it wasn't the end of the story for either President or the nation, but rather the beginning of a painful "to be continued". Seven years later the Iraq war continues at the cost so far of tens of thousands of lives (Iraqi and U.S.) and hundreds of billions of dollars, with 50,000 troops still stationed there. Obama's "to be continued" has been to confront defeat on his promise to bring a new spirit of bipartisan harmony to Washington and inaugurate a change in direction for the nation.
The Iraq war was certainly a divisive issue from the outset, but it is actually less divisive now because a large and growing majority of people has coalesced around the need for a decision to "get out". For Obama, however, the unhappy fact of the current political polarization is that it is growing. What we think of as the political middle seems to have disappeared, at least for now, as we drift toward increased bipolar politics. What is perhaps the most troublesome thing about the collapse of the middle is that it seems to be based more on the virulence of the rhetoric than on the substance of the issues. And, it is sad to acknowledge, here is where the Tea Party movement has had its greatest impact -- accelerating the emergence of a bipolar political world of extreme right conservatism and an increasingly passionate left wing liberalism/progressivism.
The middle, at least for now, has drifted toward the right. That drift has occurred in part because of the realities of a seemingly intractable economic problem characterized by high unemployment and slow growth, along with the uncertainty created among families about their own future. Obama and the Democratic Congress have been blocked in their proposed remedies by the obstructionist, partisan, and continuing strategy of Republicans to make Obama a one-term President. The drift to the right has also had appeal because of the simplistic rhetoric designed and exploited by the Tea Party since its start in early 2009, and subsequently picked up by traditional and moderate conservatives in order to get elected or re-elected. That simplistic rhetoric calls for cut spending, cut taxes, reduce the deficit, stop the liberal/socialist subversion of the Constitution, and end the growing intrusion of government into our lives. After the recent elections, Obama's "I won" has been replaced by the Republican "we won".
Unfortunately, the "we won" of the midterm elections in only a resting point on the way toward the GOP goal of total victory in 2012, total meaning a takeover of the Senate and the White House. Mitch McConnell couldn't have made it more clear in publicly stating his crass legislative strategy for the next two years -- do whatever it takes to make Obama a one-term President. Thus, any Obama effort to seek a bipartisan compromise by shifting toward the middle will find there is no one there to greet him. At the same time, his liberal/progressive base will attack him for abandoning both his and their values and goals.
Twice above in this post I have referred to the drift of the political middle toward the right as "at least for now". That could change if an unforseen event occurs that requires the two parties to come together to deal with whatever it is. The early drift of the Bush administration was transformed by the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, an event that reshaped and continues to have a major hold on our national psyche. Absent such an event, "at least for now" may have some staying power for at least two more years, and perhaps beyond. Until 2012, GOP/Tea Party failure to convert the rhetoric into substance will be explained by continued left wing Democratic control of the Senate and the White House, reflected further by the House Democrats retaining Nancy Pelosi as their leader. After 2012, who knows?
In sum, throughout the now ended campaign there was much discussion and lamenting about the lack of civility in our political discourse. With less or no moderating influence from the middle, the lack of civility in our polarized political world is likely to rise to an even higher decibel level.
"I won" is how President Obama put it to Republican congressional leaders during discussion of tax policy at a White House meeting in early 2009. "Mission Accomplished" was the wording on the banner when former President George W. Bush landed aboard an aircraft carrier shortly after toppling Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003. For both Obama and Bush, the two expressions carried the implicit add on, "end of story". As both came to realize, it wasn't the end of the story for either President or the nation, but rather the beginning of a painful "to be continued". Seven years later the Iraq war continues at the cost so far of tens of thousands of lives (Iraqi and U.S.) and hundreds of billions of dollars, with 50,000 troops still stationed there. Obama's "to be continued" has been to confront defeat on his promise to bring a new spirit of bipartisan harmony to Washington and inaugurate a change in direction for the nation.
The Iraq war was certainly a divisive issue from the outset, but it is actually less divisive now because a large and growing majority of people has coalesced around the need for a decision to "get out". For Obama, however, the unhappy fact of the current political polarization is that it is growing. What we think of as the political middle seems to have disappeared, at least for now, as we drift toward increased bipolar politics. What is perhaps the most troublesome thing about the collapse of the middle is that it seems to be based more on the virulence of the rhetoric than on the substance of the issues. And, it is sad to acknowledge, here is where the Tea Party movement has had its greatest impact -- accelerating the emergence of a bipolar political world of extreme right conservatism and an increasingly passionate left wing liberalism/progressivism.
The middle, at least for now, has drifted toward the right. That drift has occurred in part because of the realities of a seemingly intractable economic problem characterized by high unemployment and slow growth, along with the uncertainty created among families about their own future. Obama and the Democratic Congress have been blocked in their proposed remedies by the obstructionist, partisan, and continuing strategy of Republicans to make Obama a one-term President. The drift to the right has also had appeal because of the simplistic rhetoric designed and exploited by the Tea Party since its start in early 2009, and subsequently picked up by traditional and moderate conservatives in order to get elected or re-elected. That simplistic rhetoric calls for cut spending, cut taxes, reduce the deficit, stop the liberal/socialist subversion of the Constitution, and end the growing intrusion of government into our lives. After the recent elections, Obama's "I won" has been replaced by the Republican "we won".
Unfortunately, the "we won" of the midterm elections in only a resting point on the way toward the GOP goal of total victory in 2012, total meaning a takeover of the Senate and the White House. Mitch McConnell couldn't have made it more clear in publicly stating his crass legislative strategy for the next two years -- do whatever it takes to make Obama a one-term President. Thus, any Obama effort to seek a bipartisan compromise by shifting toward the middle will find there is no one there to greet him. At the same time, his liberal/progressive base will attack him for abandoning both his and their values and goals.
Twice above in this post I have referred to the drift of the political middle toward the right as "at least for now". That could change if an unforseen event occurs that requires the two parties to come together to deal with whatever it is. The early drift of the Bush administration was transformed by the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, an event that reshaped and continues to have a major hold on our national psyche. Absent such an event, "at least for now" may have some staying power for at least two more years, and perhaps beyond. Until 2012, GOP/Tea Party failure to convert the rhetoric into substance will be explained by continued left wing Democratic control of the Senate and the White House, reflected further by the House Democrats retaining Nancy Pelosi as their leader. After 2012, who knows?
In sum, throughout the now ended campaign there was much discussion and lamenting about the lack of civility in our political discourse. With less or no moderating influence from the middle, the lack of civility in our polarized political world is likely to rise to an even higher decibel level.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
GOP HULA: ALL HIPS AND NO HANDS
In a previous posting, I referred to the Hawaiian hula dance and said the real story is told in the movement of the hands, not the hips. On Monday we witnessed the hip movement when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell reversed his position on earmarking funds for pet projects (aka pork barrel). As recently as last week he was staunchly defending earmarks but at his Monday meeting with newly elected senators, he flip flopped and joined House Speaker-to-be John Boehner who had already taken a sanctimonious stand against earmarking. (The day after the McConnell switch the Senate Republican caucus voted to end earmarks.)
The symbolism/hypocrisy of the GOP anti-earmarking is really glaring since the GOP lawmakers were at the forefront of pork barrel spending when they recently controlled Congress. But what is even worse is that their new-found religion is eye catching (hips) rather than real (hands). First, the $16 billion of earmarked funds represents less than one percent of the budget and could not carry much of the burden of the GOP/Tea Party commitment to significantly reduce federal spending. But that is the lesser part of the symbolic/hypocritical stand on earmarking.
Opposition to earmarking has little or nothing to do with spending cuts, as McConnell correctly argued in his pre-flip flop position. What earmarking does is simply break off a piece of the spending pie and give that piece to a favorite project in the home district or state of a representative or senator. A hypothetical example. A total of $50 million is provided for "agricultural research". Representative X wants and gets $500,000 for a project back home to probe the sex life of centipedes. He/she hasn't added that project and money to the cost of agricultural research, but only made sure his/her district got some of the money. In short, earmarking has little or nothing to do with the size of the pie, only how it is divided. The real (hands) test in the new Congress will come as specific appropriation bills are considered and whether the new congressional true believers can resist the back-home pressure to bring home some pork.
But that $16 billion of earmarked funds talked about so much is small change compared to the huge pot that sends big money back home. That's the $700+ billion defense budget, of which about $150 billion comes off the top for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whenever a Secretary of Defense proposes a shutdown or cutback of a specific piece of military hardware or the closing of a military installation, congressional opposition immediately forms to oppose such cutbacks. If you are looking for bipartisanship, this is where you'll find it.
Just as a small and very incomplete example. Secretary of Defense Gates has taken a position against the excessive increases in cost that plague the production of the F-35 fighter aircraft. Right now the plan is to purchase nearly 2,500 of them at a cost of $382 billion over a 25 year period. European countries hope to buy an additional 3,000 planes, meaning even more money. Various parts of the plane are produced in the U.S. and abroad (abroad because of anticipated future sales and European contributions to development costs). In the U.S. there are major manufacturing and assembly factories in Texas, California, and Florida, as well as subcontractors scattered in many other states. The wide distribution of contracts and subcontracts in both populous and small states assures that there would be wide geographic, nonpartisan congressional opposition to any proposed major reductions in F-35 purchases. Thus, the defense budget has large sums of money that could be considered as politically protected earmarking. (Interestingly, Senator John McCain has targeted the F-35 as a program where cuts could be made. Although Arizona benefits from the F-35 program, his proposing some cuts may be a last vestige of his "maverick" reputation. Or, perhaps, like Gates, he is looking at controlling the growing costs rather than any reductions in the number of planes to be purchased.)
It is also important to note that Representative Howard McKeon, the incoming Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has already balked at cutting defense spending, citing the two ongoing wars as demonstrating our need to sustain the defense budget. (His California district includes Palmdale where a significant part of the F-35 production takes place.) There is no doubt that his stand is welcomed by the powerful defense interests. So far on the issue of cutting defense spending, we have seen some hand movements by Gates but the GOP/TP to this point hasn't even shown any hip action on one of the big pots of money where spending cuts are possible.
In sum, all that we have seen so far from the GOP/TP commitment to any specifics for spending cuts is symbolism. That symbolism is also part of the early congressional infighting over whether the Tea Party tail is going to wag the GOP establishment dog, or the other way around. On earmarks, the tail wagged the dog. The Boehner position and the McConnell reversal on earmarking appears to be no more than a symbolic effort to show the more conservative new members of both chambers that the establishment has listened to them and "gets it". Put another way, the establishment Republicans in Congress are now gyrating their hips to two audiences --the public and the Tea Party along with its fellow travelers.
The symbolism/hypocrisy of the GOP anti-earmarking is really glaring since the GOP lawmakers were at the forefront of pork barrel spending when they recently controlled Congress. But what is even worse is that their new-found religion is eye catching (hips) rather than real (hands). First, the $16 billion of earmarked funds represents less than one percent of the budget and could not carry much of the burden of the GOP/Tea Party commitment to significantly reduce federal spending. But that is the lesser part of the symbolic/hypocritical stand on earmarking.
Opposition to earmarking has little or nothing to do with spending cuts, as McConnell correctly argued in his pre-flip flop position. What earmarking does is simply break off a piece of the spending pie and give that piece to a favorite project in the home district or state of a representative or senator. A hypothetical example. A total of $50 million is provided for "agricultural research". Representative X wants and gets $500,000 for a project back home to probe the sex life of centipedes. He/she hasn't added that project and money to the cost of agricultural research, but only made sure his/her district got some of the money. In short, earmarking has little or nothing to do with the size of the pie, only how it is divided. The real (hands) test in the new Congress will come as specific appropriation bills are considered and whether the new congressional true believers can resist the back-home pressure to bring home some pork.
But that $16 billion of earmarked funds talked about so much is small change compared to the huge pot that sends big money back home. That's the $700+ billion defense budget, of which about $150 billion comes off the top for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whenever a Secretary of Defense proposes a shutdown or cutback of a specific piece of military hardware or the closing of a military installation, congressional opposition immediately forms to oppose such cutbacks. If you are looking for bipartisanship, this is where you'll find it.
Just as a small and very incomplete example. Secretary of Defense Gates has taken a position against the excessive increases in cost that plague the production of the F-35 fighter aircraft. Right now the plan is to purchase nearly 2,500 of them at a cost of $382 billion over a 25 year period. European countries hope to buy an additional 3,000 planes, meaning even more money. Various parts of the plane are produced in the U.S. and abroad (abroad because of anticipated future sales and European contributions to development costs). In the U.S. there are major manufacturing and assembly factories in Texas, California, and Florida, as well as subcontractors scattered in many other states. The wide distribution of contracts and subcontracts in both populous and small states assures that there would be wide geographic, nonpartisan congressional opposition to any proposed major reductions in F-35 purchases. Thus, the defense budget has large sums of money that could be considered as politically protected earmarking. (Interestingly, Senator John McCain has targeted the F-35 as a program where cuts could be made. Although Arizona benefits from the F-35 program, his proposing some cuts may be a last vestige of his "maverick" reputation. Or, perhaps, like Gates, he is looking at controlling the growing costs rather than any reductions in the number of planes to be purchased.)
It is also important to note that Representative Howard McKeon, the incoming Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has already balked at cutting defense spending, citing the two ongoing wars as demonstrating our need to sustain the defense budget. (His California district includes Palmdale where a significant part of the F-35 production takes place.) There is no doubt that his stand is welcomed by the powerful defense interests. So far on the issue of cutting defense spending, we have seen some hand movements by Gates but the GOP/TP to this point hasn't even shown any hip action on one of the big pots of money where spending cuts are possible.
In sum, all that we have seen so far from the GOP/TP commitment to any specifics for spending cuts is symbolism. That symbolism is also part of the early congressional infighting over whether the Tea Party tail is going to wag the GOP establishment dog, or the other way around. On earmarks, the tail wagged the dog. The Boehner position and the McConnell reversal on earmarking appears to be no more than a symbolic effort to show the more conservative new members of both chambers that the establishment has listened to them and "gets it". Put another way, the establishment Republicans in Congress are now gyrating their hips to two audiences --the public and the Tea Party along with its fellow travelers.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
POSTINGS: NEW AND OLD
The new post below is a look at the GOP and Tea Party and what's currently going on in Congress.
In addition. November 14, was the 50th anniversary of an important historical event, the integration of an elementary school in New Orleans, the first elementary school in the nation to be integrated. I couldn't let this go by without referring to two previous writings on this subject. The first is one of my earliest posts: Charley, if you could hear it now: Racism. That post also indicates how this blog came to be labeled Charley-liberaldog. The Steinbeck book referred to was the inspiration for launching this blog in mid-July. The second post, A Tale of One City--Two Eras, is a 50-year-later look based on a visit to New Orleans and the school and linking that history to the 5th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.
-0-0-0-0-0-0-
TO THE VICTORS: THE RIGHT TO FIGHT OVER THE SPOILS
The Republican election victory two weeks ago was a win for both the GOP and the Tea Party (TP), the latter setting the tone for the so-called discontented voter while, at the same time, pushing the GOP ideologically farther to the right. The question now is the one speculated on throughout the campaign. Will TP winners remain outside the tent of the establishment GOP and continue to be the discordant political and policy voice of the extreme right? Or, will it be co-opted by the GOP establishment and become just another part of a more conservative voice in Congress? This week's special session of Congress does not include the newly elected TP members, but it does give an opportunity for an initial look for answers to these questions since some preliminary GOP-TP skirmishes are underway.
In the House, the ever vocal, rampaging Representative Michelle Bachman has already and quickly lost her bid for the number four leadership position in the GOP. Bachman was the founder last summer of the Tea Party Caucus in the House which has more than 50 members. As the founder of the group, the promotion of the two-term Congresswoman to a leadership position would have been recognition of the contribution of the TP movement to the midterm election victory of Republicans. Instead, with the backing of the current GOP leadership (except for presumed new Speaker John Boehner who took an Olympian position and pretended to stay out of the fight), the post went to Jeb Hensarling, a four-term term conservative from Texas. So the first foray of the Tea Party to establish itself as a voice to be listened to inside the party estab;ishment fell flat.
Over in the Senate, the early issue of TP vs. GOP establishment is a bread and butter issue of pork barrel politics-- what to do about earmarking billions of dollars for favored projects in the home districts/states of members of the two chambers? A fundamental position of the Tea Party since its founding in early 2009, has been to cut federal spending with earmarking being one of the favorite targets for such cuts. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has defended earmarking, arguing that such funding comes from large pots of program money and if some of that is not earmarked for favorite projects of lawmakers, spending choices will be left in the hands of the administration/bureaucracy. The Senate voice for ending earmarking is Jim DeMint of South Carolina who has become a self-appointed leader of the TP which says it has no leadership structure. Rather the TP prefers to see itself as a grass roots movement expressing the voice of the people who "want to take their government back," whatever that means. That self-perception comes despite the fact that it, they, or whatever pieces there are of the TP, receive substantial financial backing from wealthy individuals and vested interests whose goal is serving their own political and economic self-interests. DeMint and the TP were the initial victors in the Senate earmarking dispute when McConnell backed down on the first day of the special session, but the issue is likely to come up again next year when specific appropriations are dealt with.
Meanwhile, outside of Congress, there are groups with Tea Party in their name or which serve as umbrella organizations for TP activists and as recipients of substantial outside financial support from those seeking to operate through so-called grass roots organizations. Before each new Congress there is an official orientation held to introduce first-time members to the nuts and bolts of their new jobs: organizing their office, the various staffing and other funds available to them, the legislative process, how to cast electronic floor votes, the basic rules of congressional decorum, and how to survive in Washington on $174,000 a year. The official orientation will be held this week. This year the Tea Party and like minded organizations have gotten in on the orientation act to give their particular slant on how to do things, and how the new members should think about certain issues that will come up.
One of these, FreedomWorks (FW) held a retreat last week. FW, headed by one-time Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey, receives substantial outside funding and has been a major organizer of TP activists and activities. The retreat, according to The New York Times, included topics such as: "guidelines to undoing the health care law; Monetary Policy and Economic Theory," and practical tips for living in Washington. Other TP and TP linked groups seeking to implant their views on the new members through some kind of orientation are the Tea Party Patriots, the Claremont Institute (a conservative California think tank), and Americans for Prosperity. Interestingly, according to news reports, a dispute has arisen between the Patriots group and the Claremont Institute with the former accusing the latter of falsely claiming to be the official orientation organization for the new TP legislators.
In sum, who co-opts whom (establishment GOP v Tea Party) in the new Congress will take some time to determine. My bet is on the establishment which, through the re-election of many long time incumbents, controls the power structure (at least in this House), meaning the leadership positions as well as the powerful committee and subcommittee chairs. But, through the orientation programs of those representing or pretending to represent the so-called grass roots Tea Party activists, various organizations are already at work to implant their ideological/policy agendas into the new Congress. The one thing you can be sure of, these TP or TP-linked groups are not teaching new members the old axiom of the one-time, legendary House Speaker Sam Rayburn: "To get along, go along."
In addition. November 14, was the 50th anniversary of an important historical event, the integration of an elementary school in New Orleans, the first elementary school in the nation to be integrated. I couldn't let this go by without referring to two previous writings on this subject. The first is one of my earliest posts: Charley, if you could hear it now: Racism. That post also indicates how this blog came to be labeled Charley-liberaldog. The Steinbeck book referred to was the inspiration for launching this blog in mid-July. The second post, A Tale of One City--Two Eras, is a 50-year-later look based on a visit to New Orleans and the school and linking that history to the 5th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.
-0-0-0-0-0-0-
TO THE VICTORS: THE RIGHT TO FIGHT OVER THE SPOILS
The Republican election victory two weeks ago was a win for both the GOP and the Tea Party (TP), the latter setting the tone for the so-called discontented voter while, at the same time, pushing the GOP ideologically farther to the right. The question now is the one speculated on throughout the campaign. Will TP winners remain outside the tent of the establishment GOP and continue to be the discordant political and policy voice of the extreme right? Or, will it be co-opted by the GOP establishment and become just another part of a more conservative voice in Congress? This week's special session of Congress does not include the newly elected TP members, but it does give an opportunity for an initial look for answers to these questions since some preliminary GOP-TP skirmishes are underway.
In the House, the ever vocal, rampaging Representative Michelle Bachman has already and quickly lost her bid for the number four leadership position in the GOP. Bachman was the founder last summer of the Tea Party Caucus in the House which has more than 50 members. As the founder of the group, the promotion of the two-term Congresswoman to a leadership position would have been recognition of the contribution of the TP movement to the midterm election victory of Republicans. Instead, with the backing of the current GOP leadership (except for presumed new Speaker John Boehner who took an Olympian position and pretended to stay out of the fight), the post went to Jeb Hensarling, a four-term term conservative from Texas. So the first foray of the Tea Party to establish itself as a voice to be listened to inside the party estab;ishment fell flat.
Over in the Senate, the early issue of TP vs. GOP establishment is a bread and butter issue of pork barrel politics-- what to do about earmarking billions of dollars for favored projects in the home districts/states of members of the two chambers? A fundamental position of the Tea Party since its founding in early 2009, has been to cut federal spending with earmarking being one of the favorite targets for such cuts. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has defended earmarking, arguing that such funding comes from large pots of program money and if some of that is not earmarked for favorite projects of lawmakers, spending choices will be left in the hands of the administration/bureaucracy. The Senate voice for ending earmarking is Jim DeMint of South Carolina who has become a self-appointed leader of the TP which says it has no leadership structure. Rather the TP prefers to see itself as a grass roots movement expressing the voice of the people who "want to take their government back," whatever that means. That self-perception comes despite the fact that it, they, or whatever pieces there are of the TP, receive substantial financial backing from wealthy individuals and vested interests whose goal is serving their own political and economic self-interests. DeMint and the TP were the initial victors in the Senate earmarking dispute when McConnell backed down on the first day of the special session, but the issue is likely to come up again next year when specific appropriations are dealt with.
Meanwhile, outside of Congress, there are groups with Tea Party in their name or which serve as umbrella organizations for TP activists and as recipients of substantial outside financial support from those seeking to operate through so-called grass roots organizations. Before each new Congress there is an official orientation held to introduce first-time members to the nuts and bolts of their new jobs: organizing their office, the various staffing and other funds available to them, the legislative process, how to cast electronic floor votes, the basic rules of congressional decorum, and how to survive in Washington on $174,000 a year. The official orientation will be held this week. This year the Tea Party and like minded organizations have gotten in on the orientation act to give their particular slant on how to do things, and how the new members should think about certain issues that will come up.
One of these, FreedomWorks (FW) held a retreat last week. FW, headed by one-time Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey, receives substantial outside funding and has been a major organizer of TP activists and activities. The retreat, according to The New York Times, included topics such as: "guidelines to undoing the health care law; Monetary Policy and Economic Theory," and practical tips for living in Washington. Other TP and TP linked groups seeking to implant their views on the new members through some kind of orientation are the Tea Party Patriots, the Claremont Institute (a conservative California think tank), and Americans for Prosperity. Interestingly, according to news reports, a dispute has arisen between the Patriots group and the Claremont Institute with the former accusing the latter of falsely claiming to be the official orientation organization for the new TP legislators.
In sum, who co-opts whom (establishment GOP v Tea Party) in the new Congress will take some time to determine. My bet is on the establishment which, through the re-election of many long time incumbents, controls the power structure (at least in this House), meaning the leadership positions as well as the powerful committee and subcommittee chairs. But, through the orientation programs of those representing or pretending to represent the so-called grass roots Tea Party activists, various organizations are already at work to implant their ideological/policy agendas into the new Congress. The one thing you can be sure of, these TP or TP-linked groups are not teaching new members the old axiom of the one-time, legendary House Speaker Sam Rayburn: "To get along, go along."
Friday, November 12, 2010
TIME MAGAZINE'S PERSON OF THE YEAR
It is the time of the year for TIME magazine to again select its Person of the Year, to be announced in early December. The choice can be a person, couple, group, idea, place, or machine that "for better or for worse . . . has done the most to influence events of the year." At the extreme of "worse" was Hitler (1938), although in that year we did not yet not realize how evil "worse" could get. At the "better" end was Gandhi in l930, although the British probably would not have thought so. Which brings me to this year's nominees.
My personal choice at the "worse" end would be nominee Glenn Beck, although this is not to equate him with Hitler. But his God's messenger-on-earth approach to right wing proselytizing certainly had some "worse" features in terms of his playing to the dark side of our culture/moral-values war. Happily, he doesn't rise to the standard of doing "the most to influence events of the year". On doing the "most to influence", a top contender among the nominees would have to be "The Unemployed American." If a major news event of the year was the November 2 midterm elections and the huge Republican victory, then the plight of the unemployed workers played a big role in that victory. Whether translated into "It's the economy stupid" or "Jobs, jobs, jobs", the seemingly intractable problem of unemployment is a major indicator of our continuing economic problem -- recession and a sluggish recovery. It is a problem that has certainly been exploited by the Republicans and the Tea Party (TP) movement even while they opposed various stimulus proposals to deal with the problem.
For the GOP/TP "stimulus" itself became a cuss word. Their way of tarring the term was to look at President Obama's nearly $800 billion stimulus package enacted in early 2009, and say that Obama and the Democratic Congress added to the growing budget deficit and debt but "where are the jobs"? Their data point is the unemployment rate which was and is stuck at well above 9 percent. Ignored was the counter argument from some economists that the rate would have been even higher without the stimulus money and tax incentives that created and saved jobs.
The GOP resistance to getting more money into the economy to promote consumer spending, the bedrock of our economy, extended to legislation that was most certain to promote such spending in the quickest way. This is extension of unemployment payments to jobless workers whose benefits were running out. Opposition to further extensions of jobless benefits encompassed the usual right wing mantra about spending and deficits, but was broadened to suggest that such extensions made the jobless lazy; that is, it is easier to just sit back and cash the unemployment checks than to go out and look for work.
Which brings us to the special session of Congress which begins next week. The primary attention of the media has been on the issue of what to do about the temporary tax cuts enacted under the W. Bush administration, tax cuts that explain much of the deficit/debt problem passed on to Obama and railed against by the GOP/TP. Less attention has been given to another major issue on the agenda for the special session -- a further extension of emergency unemployment benefits due to expire at the end of the month.
As Christmas approaches, the big question is whether the Republicans will play Santa Claus or Scrooge. To be fair and balanced, it should be noted that while the Republicans have been united in their opposition to another extension, they were joined before the election by some Democrats who expressed concern about the effect of extending jobless benefits on the deficit/debt problem. It will be interesting to see how those Democrats who lost will now vote with the pre-election posturing out of the way. Come to think of it, it will also be interesting to see if the TP's success in pushing the GOP farther to the right will spillover to Democrats in the House and Senate seeking re-election in 2012. Will they also view becoming more conservative as a move in the right (no pun intended) direction?
In sum, in selecting Person of the Year, TIME should again look to a group rather than a person as it has in a number of previous selections since l927 when all of this began. "The Unemployed American" would certainly fit the criterion for "most to influence events of the year". On the "better" end of the scale, it would give positive recognition to the millions of workers and their families who have suffered and continue to suffer the devastating effects of no job. On the "worse" end, it would shine a light on those who have opposed legislative remedies while castigating Obama and his congressional supporters for their failure to get the economy moving.
My personal choice at the "worse" end would be nominee Glenn Beck, although this is not to equate him with Hitler. But his God's messenger-on-earth approach to right wing proselytizing certainly had some "worse" features in terms of his playing to the dark side of our culture/moral-values war. Happily, he doesn't rise to the standard of doing "the most to influence events of the year". On doing the "most to influence", a top contender among the nominees would have to be "The Unemployed American." If a major news event of the year was the November 2 midterm elections and the huge Republican victory, then the plight of the unemployed workers played a big role in that victory. Whether translated into "It's the economy stupid" or "Jobs, jobs, jobs", the seemingly intractable problem of unemployment is a major indicator of our continuing economic problem -- recession and a sluggish recovery. It is a problem that has certainly been exploited by the Republicans and the Tea Party (TP) movement even while they opposed various stimulus proposals to deal with the problem.
For the GOP/TP "stimulus" itself became a cuss word. Their way of tarring the term was to look at President Obama's nearly $800 billion stimulus package enacted in early 2009, and say that Obama and the Democratic Congress added to the growing budget deficit and debt but "where are the jobs"? Their data point is the unemployment rate which was and is stuck at well above 9 percent. Ignored was the counter argument from some economists that the rate would have been even higher without the stimulus money and tax incentives that created and saved jobs.
The GOP resistance to getting more money into the economy to promote consumer spending, the bedrock of our economy, extended to legislation that was most certain to promote such spending in the quickest way. This is extension of unemployment payments to jobless workers whose benefits were running out. Opposition to further extensions of jobless benefits encompassed the usual right wing mantra about spending and deficits, but was broadened to suggest that such extensions made the jobless lazy; that is, it is easier to just sit back and cash the unemployment checks than to go out and look for work.
Which brings us to the special session of Congress which begins next week. The primary attention of the media has been on the issue of what to do about the temporary tax cuts enacted under the W. Bush administration, tax cuts that explain much of the deficit/debt problem passed on to Obama and railed against by the GOP/TP. Less attention has been given to another major issue on the agenda for the special session -- a further extension of emergency unemployment benefits due to expire at the end of the month.
As Christmas approaches, the big question is whether the Republicans will play Santa Claus or Scrooge. To be fair and balanced, it should be noted that while the Republicans have been united in their opposition to another extension, they were joined before the election by some Democrats who expressed concern about the effect of extending jobless benefits on the deficit/debt problem. It will be interesting to see how those Democrats who lost will now vote with the pre-election posturing out of the way. Come to think of it, it will also be interesting to see if the TP's success in pushing the GOP farther to the right will spillover to Democrats in the House and Senate seeking re-election in 2012. Will they also view becoming more conservative as a move in the right (no pun intended) direction?
In sum, in selecting Person of the Year, TIME should again look to a group rather than a person as it has in a number of previous selections since l927 when all of this began. "The Unemployed American" would certainly fit the criterion for "most to influence events of the year". On the "better" end of the scale, it would give positive recognition to the millions of workers and their families who have suffered and continue to suffer the devastating effects of no job. On the "worse" end, it would shine a light on those who have opposed legislative remedies while castigating Obama and his congressional supporters for their failure to get the economy moving.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
FOREIGN POLICY: WHAT A DIFFERENCE HAVING MONEY MAKES
China's President Hu Jintao just completed a two-country visit to Europe last week where he indicated that China may be buying up some debt of financially hard-pressed countries in Europe, as well as announcing some major business deals. One deal made while he was in Paris was a $20 billion purchase of jet planes from Europe's Airbus company, the competitor to Boeing for dominance in China's aircraft market.
Meanwhile, President Obama is on a 10-day four-nation tour in Asia to promote a variety of U.S. interests, including expanded trade relations. While in India, a $10billion job-creating package for U.S. workers was reported which included the purchase by India of U.S. military and civilian aircraft.
The big difference between the two Presidents is that Obama is looking for ways to help the sluggish American economy by increasing exports which in turn creates U.S. jobs. (The U.S. made no friends with the recent announcement by the Federal Reserve that it would purchase $600 billion of Treasury bonds to foster economic growth. But that additional injection of dollars into the money supply will lessen the value of the dollar against other currencies and make their exports more expensive.) By contrast, Hu, presiding over a $2.7 trillion surplus in its foreign reserves, is in a position to help other countries with their financial and economic problems.
For some time China has been making significant investments in Africa and South America to assure its access to a variety of natural resources, as well as providing capital for infrastructure development. It has also heavily invested in the purchase of companies around the world, including the United States. China's investment/political strategy has now expanded to Europe to help or indicate a willingness to assist financially strapped countries such as Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Ireland. That help could come in the form of Chinese purchase of some existing debt, as already done in Greece, or of bonds yet to be issued by these countries. This is occurring while China has already become the largest holder of outstanding U.S. Treasury obligations. No less important are the Chinese commitments already made or in progress for major infrastructure investments in Europe, such as port development in Greece and transportation projects to better link developed western with developing eastern Europe and Turkey.
In short, China, an emerging economy with vast cash reserves, has become an economic/financial power in its ability to gain and sustain influence in both developed and undeveloped/developing areas of the world. Meanwhile, handicapped by annual deficits exceeding $1 trillion, the U.S. counter strategy is necessarily directed toward a far less costly diplomatic approach of developing or strengthening its relations with countries bordering China and nearby countries in the Asia-Pacific region.
We have long had a variety of close relations with countries such as Japan, South Korea, New Zealand the Philippines, and Australia, as well as Taiwan. What we now seem to be doing through visits by Obama and other high administration officials such as Secretary of State Clinton is to seek closer ties with countries such as India with whom U.S. relations have ranged from warm to chilly over the years, depending on how India perceived our ties with its chief adversary, Pakistan. India has some major issues with China. Not only are they competitors in economic growth in Asia, but India also has had serious border disputes with China going back to the early l960s, when they fought a major war.
We have also been reaching out to give support to other countries which have current or recent problems with China. One of these is Vietnam which has significant territorial disputes with China, including one that led to a major military conflict in l979. Vietnam is also opposed to China's efforts to control the South China Sea and its potential resources. And recently Vietnam announced that it was opening its port at Cam Ranh Bay to foreign navies. Cambodia, which has some outstanding problems to be resolved with the U.S., is unhappy with China for the construction of dams on the Upper Mekong River which has slowed the flow of needed water to Cambodia. In a very recent visit to both Cambodia and Vietnam, Secretary Clinton stressed the U.S. commitment to maintaining a dominant role in Asia-Pacific affairs, including opposition to China's claims regarding the South China Sea. In turn, China has let it be known that it is unhappy with what it sees as U.S. intervention in its regional interests and internal affairs.
The U.S. efforts to enhance its presence in South and Southeast Asia have also led to some Chinese concern that we are reverting to a Cold War strategy of "containment". With that policy we sought to hem in Russia with a chain of military alliances that extended from western Europe (NATO), the Middle East (CENTO*) to Southeast Asia (SEATO**) We also flanked Russia in the east through our security ties with Japan. Ultimately the Middle East and Southeast Asia alliances proved to be weak and meaningless but the concept of "containment" or "encirclement" did not disappear and has now been resurrected by the Chinese as we try to build and/or strengthen our ties with countries extending from Japan to India.
In sum, China, with its economic growth and its financial resources is now sowing seeds in our traditional backyard, western Europe, presumably not only to make money on their investments but also to seek to re-orient or weaken Europe's ties with the United States while strengthening its own. Our counter on-the-cheap, diplomatic strategy is the slower process of building or rebuilding relationships with countries on China's periphery as a means of establishing or maintaining a strong deterrent to any Chinese ambitions for external expansion.
-0-0-0-0-
* Central Treaty Organization, at its height included Iran, Iraq, Pakistan,Turkey, and Britain. Turkey was the linking tie between NATO and CENTO.
**Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, at its height included France, Britain, Australia, Thailand, Philippines, New Zealand, and Pakistan. Pakistan was the linking tie between CENTO and SEATO.
Meanwhile, President Obama is on a 10-day four-nation tour in Asia to promote a variety of U.S. interests, including expanded trade relations. While in India, a $10billion job-creating package for U.S. workers was reported which included the purchase by India of U.S. military and civilian aircraft.
The big difference between the two Presidents is that Obama is looking for ways to help the sluggish American economy by increasing exports which in turn creates U.S. jobs. (The U.S. made no friends with the recent announcement by the Federal Reserve that it would purchase $600 billion of Treasury bonds to foster economic growth. But that additional injection of dollars into the money supply will lessen the value of the dollar against other currencies and make their exports more expensive.) By contrast, Hu, presiding over a $2.7 trillion surplus in its foreign reserves, is in a position to help other countries with their financial and economic problems.
For some time China has been making significant investments in Africa and South America to assure its access to a variety of natural resources, as well as providing capital for infrastructure development. It has also heavily invested in the purchase of companies around the world, including the United States. China's investment/political strategy has now expanded to Europe to help or indicate a willingness to assist financially strapped countries such as Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Ireland. That help could come in the form of Chinese purchase of some existing debt, as already done in Greece, or of bonds yet to be issued by these countries. This is occurring while China has already become the largest holder of outstanding U.S. Treasury obligations. No less important are the Chinese commitments already made or in progress for major infrastructure investments in Europe, such as port development in Greece and transportation projects to better link developed western with developing eastern Europe and Turkey.
In short, China, an emerging economy with vast cash reserves, has become an economic/financial power in its ability to gain and sustain influence in both developed and undeveloped/developing areas of the world. Meanwhile, handicapped by annual deficits exceeding $1 trillion, the U.S. counter strategy is necessarily directed toward a far less costly diplomatic approach of developing or strengthening its relations with countries bordering China and nearby countries in the Asia-Pacific region.
We have long had a variety of close relations with countries such as Japan, South Korea, New Zealand the Philippines, and Australia, as well as Taiwan. What we now seem to be doing through visits by Obama and other high administration officials such as Secretary of State Clinton is to seek closer ties with countries such as India with whom U.S. relations have ranged from warm to chilly over the years, depending on how India perceived our ties with its chief adversary, Pakistan. India has some major issues with China. Not only are they competitors in economic growth in Asia, but India also has had serious border disputes with China going back to the early l960s, when they fought a major war.
We have also been reaching out to give support to other countries which have current or recent problems with China. One of these is Vietnam which has significant territorial disputes with China, including one that led to a major military conflict in l979. Vietnam is also opposed to China's efforts to control the South China Sea and its potential resources. And recently Vietnam announced that it was opening its port at Cam Ranh Bay to foreign navies. Cambodia, which has some outstanding problems to be resolved with the U.S., is unhappy with China for the construction of dams on the Upper Mekong River which has slowed the flow of needed water to Cambodia. In a very recent visit to both Cambodia and Vietnam, Secretary Clinton stressed the U.S. commitment to maintaining a dominant role in Asia-Pacific affairs, including opposition to China's claims regarding the South China Sea. In turn, China has let it be known that it is unhappy with what it sees as U.S. intervention in its regional interests and internal affairs.
The U.S. efforts to enhance its presence in South and Southeast Asia have also led to some Chinese concern that we are reverting to a Cold War strategy of "containment". With that policy we sought to hem in Russia with a chain of military alliances that extended from western Europe (NATO), the Middle East (CENTO*) to Southeast Asia (SEATO**) We also flanked Russia in the east through our security ties with Japan. Ultimately the Middle East and Southeast Asia alliances proved to be weak and meaningless but the concept of "containment" or "encirclement" did not disappear and has now been resurrected by the Chinese as we try to build and/or strengthen our ties with countries extending from Japan to India.
In sum, China, with its economic growth and its financial resources is now sowing seeds in our traditional backyard, western Europe, presumably not only to make money on their investments but also to seek to re-orient or weaken Europe's ties with the United States while strengthening its own. Our counter on-the-cheap, diplomatic strategy is the slower process of building or rebuilding relationships with countries on China's periphery as a means of establishing or maintaining a strong deterrent to any Chinese ambitions for external expansion.
-0-0-0-0-
* Central Treaty Organization, at its height included Iran, Iraq, Pakistan,Turkey, and Britain. Turkey was the linking tie between NATO and CENTO.
**Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, at its height included France, Britain, Australia, Thailand, Philippines, New Zealand, and Pakistan. Pakistan was the linking tie between CENTO and SEATO.
Monday, November 8, 2010
POLITICS AND FOREIGN POLICY
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made two statements last week: 1) she is not interested in running for President, and ; 2) the last elections won't affect foreign policy; politics stops at the water's edge. The first we have to take her word ; on the second we should be more skeptical. The fact is that our domestic politics is a major influence on foreign policy and, what is more, it is often at the heart of foreign policy problems, or at least the ability to pursue a policy. Put another way, the basic policy goal may remain the same, but significant changes in domestic politics may force significant adjustments in pursuit of those goals.
Consider just one example which is the influence that the sizeable Cuban-American community in Florida has had and continues to have on our relations with Cuba. We fought a long and costly war in Vietnam which in reality we lost. Not only have we since made peace with Hanoi, but we also now seek to strengthen our ties with Vietnam as part of our larger efforts to maintain our strategic dominance in the Asia/Pacific region vis a vis China. We have not been able to come to a similar accommodation with Cuba, primarily because of our domestic politics. With Rep. Ros-Lethinen, a Cuban-American from Florida, likely to take over the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, easing of travel restrictions to Cuba is unlikely. Obama would like to ease restrictions and may now have to see what executive power he can use to do it. But given the painful,excessive importance of Florida's presidential electoral vote, Obama isn't likely to take the chance on his own. If you have any doubt about the importance of the Florida electoral vote, ask former Vice President Al Gore.
Then there is the never ending problem of Mideast policy. Obama has been perceived as being less supportive of Israel than his predecessors, meaning that in order to improve our relations with the Muslim world in general, Obama is seen as leaning hard on Israel to make concessions to get the so-called "peace process" restarted. Settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian problem is the highest priority of this administration's Mideast policy. The election of a more conservative, Republican Congress may force Obama and Secretary Clinton to at least downplay the importance of a settlement in judging their foreign policy success or failure. In the process, Obama may have to be seen as being more supportive of the Israeli point of view. Reason: a key part of the expanded right wing base of the GOP is the religious right which has been most supportive of Israel on a wide range of Mideast policy issues, including taking a more aggressive stand/war to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions. Obama has been pursuing a "separate track" approach on dealing with Iran, meaning a willingness to talk with Tehran on mutual problems in Afghanistan while maintaining a hardline on economic sanctions on the nuclear weapons issue. "Separate track" may now draw increased criticism from the right and work its way into the broader body politic.
There is also the problem of relations with Russia. The Obama administration has been seeking improved relations with Moscow on a wide range of issues. Getting Russian support on further U.N. economic sanctions on Iran gave some evidence of progress. But the center piece of improved relations was the agreement on a new treaty to reduce the stockpile of nuclear weapons possessed by the two countries. However, final agreement requires that it be approved by two-thirds of the Senate, 67 votes. Senate consideration of the treaty was sidetracked in part by the press of domestic legislation before the Senate, but also because of resistance by a number of Republican senators who have a general distrust of Russia when it comes to nuclear disarmament, as well as some specific concerns such as the treaty's impact on development of future U. S. anti-missile weapons systems. With the increase of Republican strength in the Senate, the future of the treaty is even less clear and with it the course of further improvement of U.S.-Russian relations.
These are just a few areas where one can be skeptical of Secretary Clinton's "no change" in foreign policy statement. There are other problems: issues such as the rate of troop drawdown in Afghanistan where Republicans are in no hurry, and China and trade/currency issues on which members of both parties have a similar view about a hardline on China. There are also less obvious problem areas such as relations with Turkey, South America (particularly Brazil), and trade policy in general and its relation to loss of U.S. jobs overseas. It is difficult to see how the latest domestic political battle, translated into major Democratic losses, will not blowback on these issues and how the Obama administration may be forced to re-tune or re-structure its foreign policy. Finally, all of this will have to be done in a world where Obama's election "shellacking" now means the overall perception of him as "a" or "the" world leader is weakened.
Consider just one example which is the influence that the sizeable Cuban-American community in Florida has had and continues to have on our relations with Cuba. We fought a long and costly war in Vietnam which in reality we lost. Not only have we since made peace with Hanoi, but we also now seek to strengthen our ties with Vietnam as part of our larger efforts to maintain our strategic dominance in the Asia/Pacific region vis a vis China. We have not been able to come to a similar accommodation with Cuba, primarily because of our domestic politics. With Rep. Ros-Lethinen, a Cuban-American from Florida, likely to take over the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, easing of travel restrictions to Cuba is unlikely. Obama would like to ease restrictions and may now have to see what executive power he can use to do it. But given the painful,excessive importance of Florida's presidential electoral vote, Obama isn't likely to take the chance on his own. If you have any doubt about the importance of the Florida electoral vote, ask former Vice President Al Gore.
Then there is the never ending problem of Mideast policy. Obama has been perceived as being less supportive of Israel than his predecessors, meaning that in order to improve our relations with the Muslim world in general, Obama is seen as leaning hard on Israel to make concessions to get the so-called "peace process" restarted. Settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian problem is the highest priority of this administration's Mideast policy. The election of a more conservative, Republican Congress may force Obama and Secretary Clinton to at least downplay the importance of a settlement in judging their foreign policy success or failure. In the process, Obama may have to be seen as being more supportive of the Israeli point of view. Reason: a key part of the expanded right wing base of the GOP is the religious right which has been most supportive of Israel on a wide range of Mideast policy issues, including taking a more aggressive stand/war to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions. Obama has been pursuing a "separate track" approach on dealing with Iran, meaning a willingness to talk with Tehran on mutual problems in Afghanistan while maintaining a hardline on economic sanctions on the nuclear weapons issue. "Separate track" may now draw increased criticism from the right and work its way into the broader body politic.
There is also the problem of relations with Russia. The Obama administration has been seeking improved relations with Moscow on a wide range of issues. Getting Russian support on further U.N. economic sanctions on Iran gave some evidence of progress. But the center piece of improved relations was the agreement on a new treaty to reduce the stockpile of nuclear weapons possessed by the two countries. However, final agreement requires that it be approved by two-thirds of the Senate, 67 votes. Senate consideration of the treaty was sidetracked in part by the press of domestic legislation before the Senate, but also because of resistance by a number of Republican senators who have a general distrust of Russia when it comes to nuclear disarmament, as well as some specific concerns such as the treaty's impact on development of future U. S. anti-missile weapons systems. With the increase of Republican strength in the Senate, the future of the treaty is even less clear and with it the course of further improvement of U.S.-Russian relations.
These are just a few areas where one can be skeptical of Secretary Clinton's "no change" in foreign policy statement. There are other problems: issues such as the rate of troop drawdown in Afghanistan where Republicans are in no hurry, and China and trade/currency issues on which members of both parties have a similar view about a hardline on China. There are also less obvious problem areas such as relations with Turkey, South America (particularly Brazil), and trade policy in general and its relation to loss of U.S. jobs overseas. It is difficult to see how the latest domestic political battle, translated into major Democratic losses, will not blowback on these issues and how the Obama administration may be forced to re-tune or re-structure its foreign policy. Finally, all of this will have to be done in a world where Obama's election "shellacking" now means the overall perception of him as "a" or "the" world leader is weakened.
Friday, November 5, 2010
GOP LEADERS DO THE HULA
To this blogger, the elections have again highlighted a central, nonpartisan congressional problem -- that is, no matter who controls the Congress there is a structural problem that defies major changes in spending policy. This post is not to spell out with any procedural precision how Congress' structural impediments to change will operate with any specific proposal. Rather, it is to array the moving parts that are imbedded in the congressional process and make both campaign and post-election promises difficult to achieve.
Early in the primary elections season, the media latched on to the anti-incumbency theme to explain voter discontent and the Tea Party as the vehicle for this discontent. To the anti-incumbent theme, I said, "humbug". Since Tuesday much has been written and stated by the analysts and pundits about the Tea Party and its wins and losses in the House and Senate and what this means in moving the Republican establishment farther to the right. But the fact is that the power structure in both the House and Senate remains in the hands of long-time incumbents who are not easily nudged in a new direction. In both chambers that power structure is the party leadership and the chairpersons of the committees and subcommittees where the legislative work is done; in this case a new Republican power structure in the House and a continuing Democratic power structure in the Senate, however diminished in votes. While the party leadership has been more assertive in seeking to control the content and flow of policy in recent years, the presumed new House Speaker John Boehner has made a point of saying he wants to decentralize some of that power, presumably returning some of it to the committees and subcommittees.
That leads us to one of the core issues of the Tea Party movement since its beginning in early 2009 and now echoed by establishment party leaders -- a commitment to cutting federal spending, however unspecified, and reducing the deficit in both the near and long term. Doing something about this issue will provide an early encounter with reality.
It was noted above that the power structure is controlled by long-time incumbents, the only change being in the House where that power will switch from Democrats to Republicans. But whether control is by Democrats or Republicans, the long established and continuing problem is the existence of policy "iron triangles" or policy subsystems. These triangles/subsystems are made up of congressional committees/subcommittees, concerned interest groups, and related bureaucracies who dominate policymaking in their particular areas. Committees are chaired by persons who have built up seniority on the committee and they have that seniority because they are repeatedly re-elected from safe districts and thus are not easily nudged to accommodate the latest ideological outbreak. For example, in farm subsidy policy, the iron triangle includes members of the Agriculture Committees, the corresponding appropriations subcommittees, farm interest groups in general and crop-specific organizations, and bureaucratic units within the Agriculture Department who administer the policy, write the regulation for that policy, and spend the money.
There is an iron triangle for every policy area you can think of. If an entirely new policy area opens up, a new iron triangle will form. This was the case in the mid-l960s when a new anti-tobacco, health oriented subsystem formed after enactment of legislation requiring warning labels on cigarette packages. That subsystem became the political base for further legislation and regulations on a wide range of anti-tobacco policies. The power of these triangles grows as their policy area expands and/or they have more money; their power shrinks when the opposite occurs. Thus, those with the biggest stake in the game, the triangle/subsystem partners are likely to oppose any authorizing legislation or appropriations decisions that run counter to their interests. Further, these triangles don't fight alone. For example, if the farm subsidy interests are threatened, they may seek a quid pro quo deal with urban oriented constituencies concerned with the food stamp program which falls within the same agriculture legislative subsystem. And if necessary, they will make mutually beneficial deals with legislators from another iron triangle. The point here is that these iron triangles are fundamental structural stumbling blocks to major policy changes, and sometimes even minor ones.
In short, in the opinion of this blogger and contrary to what Boehner and Senate Minority Leader McConnell may say, we are not on the threshold of a new millenium in congressional fiscal policymaking or a return to any basic principles of the Republican party. The basic principle at stake is power. We are, in fact, simply re-entering the long dark tunnel of the congressional policy process and the only difference, at least in the House, is which party is carrying the dim flashlight so others cannot see in. Or, to use a different metaphor, the American public must remember the first rule of the hula dance. The story is told in the movement of the hands, not the hips. Right now what we are getting is a lot of hip action.
Early in the primary elections season, the media latched on to the anti-incumbency theme to explain voter discontent and the Tea Party as the vehicle for this discontent. To the anti-incumbent theme, I said, "humbug". Since Tuesday much has been written and stated by the analysts and pundits about the Tea Party and its wins and losses in the House and Senate and what this means in moving the Republican establishment farther to the right. But the fact is that the power structure in both the House and Senate remains in the hands of long-time incumbents who are not easily nudged in a new direction. In both chambers that power structure is the party leadership and the chairpersons of the committees and subcommittees where the legislative work is done; in this case a new Republican power structure in the House and a continuing Democratic power structure in the Senate, however diminished in votes. While the party leadership has been more assertive in seeking to control the content and flow of policy in recent years, the presumed new House Speaker John Boehner has made a point of saying he wants to decentralize some of that power, presumably returning some of it to the committees and subcommittees.
That leads us to one of the core issues of the Tea Party movement since its beginning in early 2009 and now echoed by establishment party leaders -- a commitment to cutting federal spending, however unspecified, and reducing the deficit in both the near and long term. Doing something about this issue will provide an early encounter with reality.
It was noted above that the power structure is controlled by long-time incumbents, the only change being in the House where that power will switch from Democrats to Republicans. But whether control is by Democrats or Republicans, the long established and continuing problem is the existence of policy "iron triangles" or policy subsystems. These triangles/subsystems are made up of congressional committees/subcommittees, concerned interest groups, and related bureaucracies who dominate policymaking in their particular areas. Committees are chaired by persons who have built up seniority on the committee and they have that seniority because they are repeatedly re-elected from safe districts and thus are not easily nudged to accommodate the latest ideological outbreak. For example, in farm subsidy policy, the iron triangle includes members of the Agriculture Committees, the corresponding appropriations subcommittees, farm interest groups in general and crop-specific organizations, and bureaucratic units within the Agriculture Department who administer the policy, write the regulation for that policy, and spend the money.
There is an iron triangle for every policy area you can think of. If an entirely new policy area opens up, a new iron triangle will form. This was the case in the mid-l960s when a new anti-tobacco, health oriented subsystem formed after enactment of legislation requiring warning labels on cigarette packages. That subsystem became the political base for further legislation and regulations on a wide range of anti-tobacco policies. The power of these triangles grows as their policy area expands and/or they have more money; their power shrinks when the opposite occurs. Thus, those with the biggest stake in the game, the triangle/subsystem partners are likely to oppose any authorizing legislation or appropriations decisions that run counter to their interests. Further, these triangles don't fight alone. For example, if the farm subsidy interests are threatened, they may seek a quid pro quo deal with urban oriented constituencies concerned with the food stamp program which falls within the same agriculture legislative subsystem. And if necessary, they will make mutually beneficial deals with legislators from another iron triangle. The point here is that these iron triangles are fundamental structural stumbling blocks to major policy changes, and sometimes even minor ones.
In short, in the opinion of this blogger and contrary to what Boehner and Senate Minority Leader McConnell may say, we are not on the threshold of a new millenium in congressional fiscal policymaking or a return to any basic principles of the Republican party. The basic principle at stake is power. We are, in fact, simply re-entering the long dark tunnel of the congressional policy process and the only difference, at least in the House, is which party is carrying the dim flashlight so others cannot see in. Or, to use a different metaphor, the American public must remember the first rule of the hula dance. The story is told in the movement of the hands, not the hips. Right now what we are getting is a lot of hip action.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
THE WARP SPEED OF CONVENTIONAL WISDOM
Last night and this morning we were inundated with analyses, punditry, and crystal ball gazing about the election results and what they politically mean. In an earlier time, say 40 or 50 years ago, it would take some time for the results to be interpreted and implanted into the public mind. Now, in this age of the 24- hour cable news cycle, online newspapers, and the intense competition between the networks and the multitude of blogs, it takes little time for the instant analysis of the pundits or the "talking heads", as President H.W.Bush called them, to become conventional wisdom or CW, as it is now conventionally called in the texting/tweet world. Much of this CW was already being dispensed by the media at the end of the primary election season.
So what is today's state of analysis cum CW?
1. The Tea Party. As expected, the Tea Party (TP) has had a significant impact on our politics and now, in the aftermath of the elections, the first place it will have to be dealt with is within the Republican party, the home of the TP winners. The TP wins, although losing some very visible races in Delaware and Nevada, mean the GOP "Party of No" must now accommodate the more extreme conservatives and their backward-looking promises of the direction the country must take. Now Democats in the House who narrowly won and those in Senate up for re-election in 2012 must immediately assess what the Tea Party's conservatism means to them. The TP pushed the GOP further to the right so some Democrats must now consider whether they have to become more conservative to survive?
2. Special session of Congress. The most important issue to be dealt with in the special session coming in two weeks will be the for-or-against extension of the W. Bush tax cuts for the upper income group, currently defined as those families making more than $250,000 a year. There is also the issue of reinstating the higher rates on the estate tax. The GOP will seek to make all of the income tax cuts permanent or at least settle for extending the temporary cuts for an additional 1-2 years. When last heard from on this issue, President Obama wanted to end the upper income reductions on December 31, while congressional Democrats were split on the issue on ending the cuts now or extending them. The second big issue on the agenda for the special session is a further extension of unemployment benefits. Republican lawmakers have resisted such extension and the election results are not likely to soften that position.
3. Obama and 2012. After a break for Thanksgiving./Christmas holidays, the real political confrontation begins. That is the runup to the presidential election in 2012. The number one issue will remain the economy and the President can expect little help from the Congress to get the kind of legislation he thinks is needed to get beyond the current sluggish growth. But now Republicans, in taking over the House and increasing their Senate seats, will own a piece of the problem and can't simply say it's Obama's fault. The next election will be the ultimate showdown between the re-born GOP, thought dead just two years ago, and President Obama and his fellow Democrats who two years ago seemed to have created a new era of Democratic political dominance.
4. House of Boehner. Unlike the Senate, the GOP's comfortable majority means that chamber can get passage of much of what the leadership wants. In the new Congress, that means the House will be passing multiple bills to reduce spending, end earmarks, and undo some key elements of Obama's health care reform and increased regulation of the financial markets. There also may be legislation on such things as curbing the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to control industrial pollution. And various House committees will conduct hearings/investigations on a variety of issues such as alleged efforts (alleged by the right wing) by some scientists to manipulate data to support the case for global warming, and Obama's handling of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. To create a bit of my own, less headline-grabbing CW, any chance of legislatively easing travel to Cuba is dead with Representative Ros-Lehtinen of Florida taking over the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. (Here is where I would like to inject a personal thought. As a political leader John Boehner is as phony as his suntan looks. But, on second thought, that also may be CW for somewhere under 50 percent of us.)
5. Senate gridlock. Whatever bills are passed by the House will crash into the Senate wall where a diminished Democratic majority will not hesitate to use the 60-vote rule against the Republicans who had considerable success in keeping important parts of the Democratic agenda from reaching the Senate floor for debate. There will be a few conservative Democrats such as Ben Nelson of Nebraska who will be siding with Republicans on some issues. The Senate will be the chamber of legislative stalemate that will keep House-passed bills from reaching Obama's desk, although some pundits will be arguing that the congressional split will open up opportunities for more compromise. Republicans will continue to block many of Obama's nominations for judgeships and appointments to ambassadorships and administrative posts. And as another contribution of this blog to CW, the GOP will also block Obama's getting the necessary two-thirds approval of the missile reduction treaty with Russia.
There is much more instant or soon-to-be CW coming out of the media, but I thought this quick if incomplete summary of such would relieve me of coming up with a new and different angle on what the elections mean, or rather what we are being told they mean.
So what is today's state of analysis cum CW?
1. The Tea Party. As expected, the Tea Party (TP) has had a significant impact on our politics and now, in the aftermath of the elections, the first place it will have to be dealt with is within the Republican party, the home of the TP winners. The TP wins, although losing some very visible races in Delaware and Nevada, mean the GOP "Party of No" must now accommodate the more extreme conservatives and their backward-looking promises of the direction the country must take. Now Democats in the House who narrowly won and those in Senate up for re-election in 2012 must immediately assess what the Tea Party's conservatism means to them. The TP pushed the GOP further to the right so some Democrats must now consider whether they have to become more conservative to survive?
2. Special session of Congress. The most important issue to be dealt with in the special session coming in two weeks will be the for-or-against extension of the W. Bush tax cuts for the upper income group, currently defined as those families making more than $250,000 a year. There is also the issue of reinstating the higher rates on the estate tax. The GOP will seek to make all of the income tax cuts permanent or at least settle for extending the temporary cuts for an additional 1-2 years. When last heard from on this issue, President Obama wanted to end the upper income reductions on December 31, while congressional Democrats were split on the issue on ending the cuts now or extending them. The second big issue on the agenda for the special session is a further extension of unemployment benefits. Republican lawmakers have resisted such extension and the election results are not likely to soften that position.
3. Obama and 2012. After a break for Thanksgiving./Christmas holidays, the real political confrontation begins. That is the runup to the presidential election in 2012. The number one issue will remain the economy and the President can expect little help from the Congress to get the kind of legislation he thinks is needed to get beyond the current sluggish growth. But now Republicans, in taking over the House and increasing their Senate seats, will own a piece of the problem and can't simply say it's Obama's fault. The next election will be the ultimate showdown between the re-born GOP, thought dead just two years ago, and President Obama and his fellow Democrats who two years ago seemed to have created a new era of Democratic political dominance.
4. House of Boehner. Unlike the Senate, the GOP's comfortable majority means that chamber can get passage of much of what the leadership wants. In the new Congress, that means the House will be passing multiple bills to reduce spending, end earmarks, and undo some key elements of Obama's health care reform and increased regulation of the financial markets. There also may be legislation on such things as curbing the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to control industrial pollution. And various House committees will conduct hearings/investigations on a variety of issues such as alleged efforts (alleged by the right wing) by some scientists to manipulate data to support the case for global warming, and Obama's handling of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. To create a bit of my own, less headline-grabbing CW, any chance of legislatively easing travel to Cuba is dead with Representative Ros-Lehtinen of Florida taking over the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. (Here is where I would like to inject a personal thought. As a political leader John Boehner is as phony as his suntan looks. But, on second thought, that also may be CW for somewhere under 50 percent of us.)
5. Senate gridlock. Whatever bills are passed by the House will crash into the Senate wall where a diminished Democratic majority will not hesitate to use the 60-vote rule against the Republicans who had considerable success in keeping important parts of the Democratic agenda from reaching the Senate floor for debate. There will be a few conservative Democrats such as Ben Nelson of Nebraska who will be siding with Republicans on some issues. The Senate will be the chamber of legislative stalemate that will keep House-passed bills from reaching Obama's desk, although some pundits will be arguing that the congressional split will open up opportunities for more compromise. Republicans will continue to block many of Obama's nominations for judgeships and appointments to ambassadorships and administrative posts. And as another contribution of this blog to CW, the GOP will also block Obama's getting the necessary two-thirds approval of the missile reduction treaty with Russia.
There is much more instant or soon-to-be CW coming out of the media, but I thought this quick if incomplete summary of such would relieve me of coming up with a new and different angle on what the elections mean, or rather what we are being told they mean.
Monday, November 1, 2010
THE PEACE PROCESS THAT ISN'T and maybe never was
One dictionary definition of progress is, "a systematic series of actions directed to some end." If that is a reasonable approximation of the meaning, then we do not have a viable "peace process" in the long-running Israeli-Palestinian confrontation. First, there is certainly no systematic series of actions. For now there doesn't even seem to be any action in terms of just holding meetings. Second, it is not clear that there is some agreed upon end.
Starting with the second point. It had seemed that the end goal was establishment of an independent Palestinian state carved out of territory occupied by Israel since the l967 war, territory referred to as the West Bank and Gaza. That is the goal which the United States, the driving force behind the so-called "peace process", and the Palestinian Authority (PA) headed by Mahmoud Abbas have in mind. That was also presumed to be the objective the Israeli government has in mind. But is no longer clear that an independent Palestine is an objective shared by all of the important players within the Israel's governing coalition. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seems to be okay with such an end goal, but there are important elements among the extreme right wing members of his coalition who think that creation of such a state is something that might happen in the indeterminate future, but in the near term some other Israeli-Palestinian solution might be in order. Perhaps the granting of greater political and economic autonomy and loosened travel and work restrictions but not establishment of a fully independent Palestinian state.
Concerning the first point on the absence of action. Start with the players. The most evident missing player is Hamas, which by elections in 2006, gained control of the Gaza strip. To both Israel and the United States Hamas is a terrorist organization and, as such, is blocked from being a participant in any negotiations. Hamas itself opposes the negotiations--period. Hamas, which receives significant support from Iran and Syria, is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. The frequency with which rockets are launched from Gaza into Israel gives credence to the terrorist label, although Hamas has shown some ability to control the intensity of rocket attacks with periodic cease fire arrangements. Thus Abbas, in any talks that may go on, does not speak for Hamas-controlled Gaza and has to proceed carefully or be accused by Hamas of selling out to Israel. So the exclusion of Hamas from any peace process leaves out a crucial player on the Palestinian side of the equation.
But unless something happens soon on resuming talks, the absence of Hamas and opposition to an independent Palestine from the extreme right in Israel won't really matter. Even the shakey talks that had begun are stalled. After considerable efforts by the Obama administration to breathe new life into the peace process, a "summit" meeting was held in Washington in early September. That meeting ended with what seemed to be a commitment by Abbas and Netanyahu to pursue further meetings toward a settlement. Perhaps "settlement" is the wrong choice of words. It is over the issue of Israel's building housing settlements on West Bank territory potentially to be within a Palestinian state that the talks have floundered. The Washington meeting came only after the Netanyahu government put a temporary halt to continuing construction of settlements. That temporary half ended on September 26 and Israel has, to this point, refused to extend the temporary ban. With that refusal, the talks collapsed.
What is frustrating for Obama and the State Department negotiators is that they have made security and arms offers to Israel in exchange for another temporary halt in settlement construction. Meanwhile, Netanyahu, under pressure from the extreme right, has cleared the way for over 500 new units on the West Bank. In short, the settlement issue, as stated in a previous post, has become the fundamental issue blocking any progress in the peace process. If the United States has to make major commitments to even restart negotiations, what will we have to do when the talks, if resumed, get to the really difficult issues. Among these are drawing the exact borderlines of a new state, settling the status of East Jerusalem which the Palestinians would like as their capital, and Palestinian demands about the right of return of the hundreds of thousands of refugees created by the original partitioning of Palestine and the resultant 1948 Arab-Israeli war. There are an estimated one million refugees in the Gaza Strip alone. So we have promised a lot already asking for very little in return, and even what we have offered does not seem, at this point, to have nudged the two sides toward even another round of talks.
Netanyahu has indicated that his government and Washington are trying to work out something so the talks can resume. Meanwhile, Abbas is talking about going directly to the United Nations to get it to declare the existence of an independent Palestine, a move that the United States would not want. It would lead to a U.S. veto in the Security Council and further reinforce the charge that the United States has an unalterable, firm bias against the Arab/Islamic world. So right now this country is being played by both the Israelis and the Palestinians to see how much they can get out of us rather than sit down and see what they can get out of each other.
Starting with the second point. It had seemed that the end goal was establishment of an independent Palestinian state carved out of territory occupied by Israel since the l967 war, territory referred to as the West Bank and Gaza. That is the goal which the United States, the driving force behind the so-called "peace process", and the Palestinian Authority (PA) headed by Mahmoud Abbas have in mind. That was also presumed to be the objective the Israeli government has in mind. But is no longer clear that an independent Palestine is an objective shared by all of the important players within the Israel's governing coalition. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seems to be okay with such an end goal, but there are important elements among the extreme right wing members of his coalition who think that creation of such a state is something that might happen in the indeterminate future, but in the near term some other Israeli-Palestinian solution might be in order. Perhaps the granting of greater political and economic autonomy and loosened travel and work restrictions but not establishment of a fully independent Palestinian state.
Concerning the first point on the absence of action. Start with the players. The most evident missing player is Hamas, which by elections in 2006, gained control of the Gaza strip. To both Israel and the United States Hamas is a terrorist organization and, as such, is blocked from being a participant in any negotiations. Hamas itself opposes the negotiations--period. Hamas, which receives significant support from Iran and Syria, is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. The frequency with which rockets are launched from Gaza into Israel gives credence to the terrorist label, although Hamas has shown some ability to control the intensity of rocket attacks with periodic cease fire arrangements. Thus Abbas, in any talks that may go on, does not speak for Hamas-controlled Gaza and has to proceed carefully or be accused by Hamas of selling out to Israel. So the exclusion of Hamas from any peace process leaves out a crucial player on the Palestinian side of the equation.
But unless something happens soon on resuming talks, the absence of Hamas and opposition to an independent Palestine from the extreme right in Israel won't really matter. Even the shakey talks that had begun are stalled. After considerable efforts by the Obama administration to breathe new life into the peace process, a "summit" meeting was held in Washington in early September. That meeting ended with what seemed to be a commitment by Abbas and Netanyahu to pursue further meetings toward a settlement. Perhaps "settlement" is the wrong choice of words. It is over the issue of Israel's building housing settlements on West Bank territory potentially to be within a Palestinian state that the talks have floundered. The Washington meeting came only after the Netanyahu government put a temporary halt to continuing construction of settlements. That temporary half ended on September 26 and Israel has, to this point, refused to extend the temporary ban. With that refusal, the talks collapsed.
What is frustrating for Obama and the State Department negotiators is that they have made security and arms offers to Israel in exchange for another temporary halt in settlement construction. Meanwhile, Netanyahu, under pressure from the extreme right, has cleared the way for over 500 new units on the West Bank. In short, the settlement issue, as stated in a previous post, has become the fundamental issue blocking any progress in the peace process. If the United States has to make major commitments to even restart negotiations, what will we have to do when the talks, if resumed, get to the really difficult issues. Among these are drawing the exact borderlines of a new state, settling the status of East Jerusalem which the Palestinians would like as their capital, and Palestinian demands about the right of return of the hundreds of thousands of refugees created by the original partitioning of Palestine and the resultant 1948 Arab-Israeli war. There are an estimated one million refugees in the Gaza Strip alone. So we have promised a lot already asking for very little in return, and even what we have offered does not seem, at this point, to have nudged the two sides toward even another round of talks.
Netanyahu has indicated that his government and Washington are trying to work out something so the talks can resume. Meanwhile, Abbas is talking about going directly to the United Nations to get it to declare the existence of an independent Palestine, a move that the United States would not want. It would lead to a U.S. veto in the Security Council and further reinforce the charge that the United States has an unalterable, firm bias against the Arab/Islamic world. So right now this country is being played by both the Israelis and the Palestinians to see how much they can get out of us rather than sit down and see what they can get out of each other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)