Up until a month ago, President Bush and his spokespeople were pronouncing “The Surge” of American troops into Iran over this past year “a success.” The proof: Iraqi and American death statistics during this period have been down cumulatively. Less deaths = more success. That was the yardstick.
Then, Premier al-Maliki (our staunch ally?) unilaterally decided to play Iraqi macho-man. With no consultation or notice to American troop leaders, he decided to storm into Basra and Sadr City to disarm Shiite militiamen and bring those areas under central government control. His tool for this ill-planned endeavor was the much-heralded “new Iraqi army,” a principal multi-year focus of our $25B security force building project. From this incursion, Iraqi killing spiked yet again. In his best Bush-speak, we were now told that “increased violence shows the success of the surge and our efforts, because it demonstrates the Iraqi government’s willingness and ability to enforce security within the country.” Violence is Progress! What?
Except the funniest thing happened on the way to Basra. Many Shiite army and police force members deserted, unwilling to attack their kindred. Moreover, the militiamen defended themselves well. The Iraqi army ― they who are supposed to “stand up so we can stand down” ― blew it, unable to win the battle and disarm the militiamen. The un-consulted US had to be brought in after the fact to provide air power and weaponry to protect the Iraqi army stuck in their tracks. The army stalled, objective un-won. And we had to create a spin to make it all sound OK.
The objective was for a well-equipped and organized “army” to overpower and eliminate the cleric al-Sadr’s street militia. To remove a powerbase threat to the installed Bagdad government. But the fighting stopped only when al-Maliki made a pitch to Iran’s leaders to intercede in the conflict (which they happily did) and when al-Sadr (not the official government) offered to institute a truce. Only winners can declare a truce, not losers; the fighting stopped only because al-Sadr decreed it.
The whole exercise eerily resembled Israel’s incursion into Lebanon awhile back. A dominant military force invaded to disarm and neutralize a loose street militia, only to be ground down and neutralized itself. Thereby diminishing Israeli prowess and dispelling the aura of invincibility that is in itself a key to its defense. As a result, legitimacy and authority was given to the very force Israel set out to destroy. Lebanon has been stuck with and paralyzed ever since by political disruption from this new legitimized power within its border. Likely Iraq will now be similarly disrupted, forced to acknowledge openly that the real cardholder in Iraq is not the fantasy government in Bagdad. The real power is al-Sadr and the other tribal chieftains. Saddam Hussein understood that there is no natural indigenous “country” of Iraq; it existed only through the brute force of his terror towards the people themselves. (See also the People’s Republic of China.)
So General Petraeus continues to masterfully try to fight a war that will ultimately destroy him. He marches up to Capital Hill for his latest briefing to Congress, a report essentially pre-scripted by the word signals already issued by Bush/Cheney. He says, in words / pictures / graphs, “the surge has been a success.” But we can’t leave because it would all fall apart. And if we stay, “the gains are all very fragile” and could disappear in a flash. We lose whichever way we go. This is not how most of us would define “success.”
Violence in Iraq has been reduced not because of The Surge provided by our young military men and women. It is down because al-Sadr and other chieftains have opted to pull back and protect their resources and turfs, expel the al-Qaida outsiders who threaten their control, and then bide their time waiting for their moment to come. The outcome of Iraq is not in our hands. Nor is it in the hands of the illusionary government in Bagdad ― an empty empire with a king who has been shown to wear no regal clothes.
Yet just after general Petraeus’s testimony, Bush-speak says that we are witnessing a “brilliant turnaround” in Iraq. Have the garden’s rose bushes completely covered the windows of the White House? Through what bizarre colored lens does this President see? And is anyone listening to him anymore? The only “brilliance” that I can see is the decision to “turnaround” and come home. Let be what is ultimately going to be anyway.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
Tibet Genocide
Yesterday, I sent the following email individually to President Bush, my two U.S. Senators, and my U.S. Representative:
“Regarding the current events in Tibet: Last Fall the US government awarded the Dalai Lama a medal, amid a great ceremony of recognition. Now, when a strong voice is needed about what China is doing to the people of Tibet, our executive branch is virtually silent. Where is our unified statement of moral outrage? Where is our pro-democracy evangelism now? This is a uniting issue for both Democrats and Republicans. I urge our government to speak up forcibly to stop this continuing shameless cultural genocide and ethnic cleansing.”
In our current political environment where public relations and photo ops substitute for actions of substance, our failure to make an unequivocal public statement about Chinese leaders' actions in Tibet is deplorable. A few individual Congress-people have spoken up. Yet President Bush's only statement on the subject through his spokeswoman is that he "will not cancel his planned trip to the Olympics in August." Condoleeza Rice lamely offered that "we are certainly concerned about the situation in Tibet," and that she "hoped China would show restraint." Well, that strong State Department statement should certainly give Chinese leaders pause to be concerned (given that no such restraint has yet to be seen)!
We have certainly offered up noble statements about bringing democracy and self-determination to selected parts of the world --- most notably those places where we have vested oil interests or can claim politically self-promoting defenses against terrorist threats. If the Himalayan Mountains of Tibet were oil or mineral rich, would we have far more to say about what happens to it? It took Laura Bush to make the case against the oppression of Buddhist monks and civilians in Burma out of her genuine humanitarian concerns. Where was her husband during that similar pitiful situation?
Where there is no vested economic connection, it appears that we have no moral or humanitarian interest. We have become a junior partner in our trade with China. We have become a debtor nation, with China as our creditor, in order to finance our Iraq misadventure. We have become a hollow international voice because the world knows we are already beyond our capacities militarily and financially, and have no reservoir of trust and goodwill to draw from in our strained relationships with other countries.
I had the extreme pleasure of making a solo visit to Tibet in 1999. It was an incredible personal experience to meet these people, and to observe first-hand a culture stymied under China’s external political control. It was very sad to see the relegation of their culture to a "museum status" while being made-over into a Chinese facelift. We brought everything possible to bear to stop this kind of thing in the Balkans 10 years ago. Why not now?
It is easy to show up at the dinner, present the medal, pose for the pictures, and bask in the glow
of a true spiritual and moral leader who embodies the good of his people. Today, when our collective voice is most needed, we sit silent.
“Regarding the current events in Tibet: Last Fall the US government awarded the Dalai Lama a medal, amid a great ceremony of recognition. Now, when a strong voice is needed about what China is doing to the people of Tibet, our executive branch is virtually silent. Where is our unified statement of moral outrage? Where is our pro-democracy evangelism now? This is a uniting issue for both Democrats and Republicans. I urge our government to speak up forcibly to stop this continuing shameless cultural genocide and ethnic cleansing.”
In our current political environment where public relations and photo ops substitute for actions of substance, our failure to make an unequivocal public statement about Chinese leaders' actions in Tibet is deplorable. A few individual Congress-people have spoken up. Yet President Bush's only statement on the subject through his spokeswoman is that he "will not cancel his planned trip to the Olympics in August." Condoleeza Rice lamely offered that "we are certainly concerned about the situation in Tibet," and that she "hoped China would show restraint." Well, that strong State Department statement should certainly give Chinese leaders pause to be concerned (given that no such restraint has yet to be seen)!
We have certainly offered up noble statements about bringing democracy and self-determination to selected parts of the world --- most notably those places where we have vested oil interests or can claim politically self-promoting defenses against terrorist threats. If the Himalayan Mountains of Tibet were oil or mineral rich, would we have far more to say about what happens to it? It took Laura Bush to make the case against the oppression of Buddhist monks and civilians in Burma out of her genuine humanitarian concerns. Where was her husband during that similar pitiful situation?
Where there is no vested economic connection, it appears that we have no moral or humanitarian interest. We have become a junior partner in our trade with China. We have become a debtor nation, with China as our creditor, in order to finance our Iraq misadventure. We have become a hollow international voice because the world knows we are already beyond our capacities militarily and financially, and have no reservoir of trust and goodwill to draw from in our strained relationships with other countries.
I had the extreme pleasure of making a solo visit to Tibet in 1999. It was an incredible personal experience to meet these people, and to observe first-hand a culture stymied under China’s external political control. It was very sad to see the relegation of their culture to a "museum status" while being made-over into a Chinese facelift. We brought everything possible to bear to stop this kind of thing in the Balkans 10 years ago. Why not now?
It is easy to show up at the dinner, present the medal, pose for the pictures, and bask in the glow
of a true spiritual and moral leader who embodies the good of his people. Today, when our collective voice is most needed, we sit silent.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
The Religous Test
The other night, I sat down and read anew the Constitution of the United States and its several amendments. I recommend such an exercise to everyone on some periodic basis (for example, www.usconstitution.net). Such a reading provides a good opportunity to refresh ourselves as to the original thinking, priorities, fears, and experiences that our Founding Fathers drew from in writing this fabulous document. Much of what is there would come as a profound shock to the Religious Right and neo-conservatives who continually shout about needing “strict constructionist judges who will “not make laws from the bench but will interpret the Constitution literally.” Because the Constitution ― and the Founding Fathers actions and statement at the time ― rarely support their pet concerns.
One major observation in my re-reading was that the word “God” exists nowhere in that document. Indeed, the closest one might get to that is the one instance of the word “Lord,” and that is only there in the context of defining the acceptance date of the document by the Constitutional Convention as the “Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.” Hardly a ringing marriage between our country and government and God; certainly a far cry from constituting America as a Christian Theocracy as some self-appointed spokespersons would claim. Further, the only two references to religion at all in the Constitution are in the negative:
· Article VI: “… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
· Amendment 1: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”
Pretty clear one thing they were worried about in 1787, huh?
Yet here we now are in the presidential election of 2008. The would-be election of the head of the American Church of State, if some would have their way. Just as with the Queen of England, who also serves as the head of the Church of England (Anglican Church) and with whom we fought a war to be free of such an investment of Church + State power. As some seek to declare a national religion for America, so apparently we must now also inaugurate a Presidential Pastor.
So we have seen:
· John McCain saying and acting in various ways to cozy up to newfound relationships with Religious Right people previously held at arm’s length disdain. None of it done too convincingly; as they say, “that dog just don’t hunt.” Cancel both principle and credibility.
· Mitt Romney, awkwardly trying to take a page from John Kennedy’s playbook with a “Pastor’s Meeting In Houston” to explain (diffuse) his Mormonism. Except that he only said the word Mormon once; he staged it within a blatant Madison Avenue marketing backdrop at the G.H.W.Bush library; he took no questions; he made a speech and left. Could have phoned it in. As was said about a prior Vice President, “[Mitt], you are no Jack Kennedy.”
· Mike Huckabee, the most avowed pastor-candidate, but failing to get much beyond the 30% vote that the Religious Right minority represents in national Republican party politics;
· Barack Obama, having to defend himself against unfounded gossip charges that he is secretly a Moslem, and having to prove his Protestant church history and membership;
· Hillary Clinton, against her desires and sense of good taste, being forced to discuss her Methodist upbringing, and how her religious faith and counsel from Rev. Billy Graham brought her through the trials of “life with Bill.”
All 20-odd presidential candidates this year have had to make some declaration of religious faith and affiliation in order to be a viable candidate. This in spite of our wise Constitutional prohibition that “… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Romney having to defend his Mormonism was a low point this year; Obama’s need to prove that he is not a Moslem is a similar travesty― and so what difference would it make if he was, except to the bigots for whom Islam = Terrorist = Kill America. And what will we do when a Jew is finally elected President: how will she conduct the annual Christmas Tree lighting service, and to whom will he send the White House Christmas Cards?
I frankly agree with all those who say “Go back to the Constitution.” But some should be careful what they ask for. That Constitution tells us explicitly to “butt out!”
One major observation in my re-reading was that the word “God” exists nowhere in that document. Indeed, the closest one might get to that is the one instance of the word “Lord,” and that is only there in the context of defining the acceptance date of the document by the Constitutional Convention as the “Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.” Hardly a ringing marriage between our country and government and God; certainly a far cry from constituting America as a Christian Theocracy as some self-appointed spokespersons would claim. Further, the only two references to religion at all in the Constitution are in the negative:
· Article VI: “… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
· Amendment 1: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”
Pretty clear one thing they were worried about in 1787, huh?
Yet here we now are in the presidential election of 2008. The would-be election of the head of the American Church of State, if some would have their way. Just as with the Queen of England, who also serves as the head of the Church of England (Anglican Church) and with whom we fought a war to be free of such an investment of Church + State power. As some seek to declare a national religion for America, so apparently we must now also inaugurate a Presidential Pastor.
So we have seen:
· John McCain saying and acting in various ways to cozy up to newfound relationships with Religious Right people previously held at arm’s length disdain. None of it done too convincingly; as they say, “that dog just don’t hunt.” Cancel both principle and credibility.
· Mitt Romney, awkwardly trying to take a page from John Kennedy’s playbook with a “Pastor’s Meeting In Houston” to explain (diffuse) his Mormonism. Except that he only said the word Mormon once; he staged it within a blatant Madison Avenue marketing backdrop at the G.H.W.Bush library; he took no questions; he made a speech and left. Could have phoned it in. As was said about a prior Vice President, “[Mitt], you are no Jack Kennedy.”
· Mike Huckabee, the most avowed pastor-candidate, but failing to get much beyond the 30% vote that the Religious Right minority represents in national Republican party politics;
· Barack Obama, having to defend himself against unfounded gossip charges that he is secretly a Moslem, and having to prove his Protestant church history and membership;
· Hillary Clinton, against her desires and sense of good taste, being forced to discuss her Methodist upbringing, and how her religious faith and counsel from Rev. Billy Graham brought her through the trials of “life with Bill.”
All 20-odd presidential candidates this year have had to make some declaration of religious faith and affiliation in order to be a viable candidate. This in spite of our wise Constitutional prohibition that “… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Romney having to defend his Mormonism was a low point this year; Obama’s need to prove that he is not a Moslem is a similar travesty― and so what difference would it make if he was, except to the bigots for whom Islam = Terrorist = Kill America. And what will we do when a Jew is finally elected President: how will she conduct the annual Christmas Tree lighting service, and to whom will he send the White House Christmas Cards?
I frankly agree with all those who say “Go back to the Constitution.” But some should be careful what they ask for. That Constitution tells us explicitly to “butt out!”
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Welcome A New Country
This week, a new country bounded onto the world stage. Kosovo. An area of ethnic Albanians which has long struggled to assert its own identity. Previously a province of Yugoslavia until that country broke up, then a province of Serbia – neither of which was particularly accommodating to those people. Now it is on its own, a small but newly independent country.
Serbia is objecting to this unilateral declaration of independence. Russia and China are likewise objecting to recognizing this separation. But those two major powers admit that their objections are based upon their own fears of such a move potentially enticing similar separatist movements in their countries. Given all of the varieties of ethnic and religious groups that have been swallowed up by those countries over the course of their histories, it is likely an entirely valid concern. (Think Tibet in China; Chechnya in Russia.)
The Bush administration has encouraged Kosovo’s independence, and has moved quickly to recognize the new nation. Of course, as quickly as we paint Russia and China as being anti-freedom bad guys, we gloss over our own history regarding separation. An extremely costly war (both financially and in human life) was fought in this country 140+ years ago over whether a state(s) could opt out of the United States union. Slavery and economics created a deep national division in this country; the legality or not of succession created a civil war. The outcome of this war determined that, once in, no succession is allowed. It’s been a settled legal question for a century and a half, although the cultural divisions resulting from that war are still with us. Therefore we stand on somewhat shaky ground when we frequently encourage nationalistic separations around the world.
Except in Iraq. Here we continue to try stitch a country together that was created from yet another attempted intervention by post-World War I European powers to create a world map defined by their colonial histories and ambitions. Modern Iraq has existed only in the minds and force of successive despots, ending with Saddam Hussein. Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis are distinctive cultures, with their own histories of confrontation among themselves. The physical separation of these groups within Iraq has already happened through ethnic cleansing and a relocation of people into affinity enclaves.
Senator Joe Biden has long advocated a 3-region partition solution for Iraq. It is almost already in place now, with each group just waiting for our overdue departure to make it a formal reality. We should follow Senator Biden’s advice. Nations can be formed among people of mixed backgrounds where respect and shared values can be in place; witness this country over 300 years, though not without our periodic difficulties. But in the long run, nations cannot be built and sustained where there is no common aspiration, where a shared identity cannot be established around which to unify a people.
Serbia is objecting to this unilateral declaration of independence. Russia and China are likewise objecting to recognizing this separation. But those two major powers admit that their objections are based upon their own fears of such a move potentially enticing similar separatist movements in their countries. Given all of the varieties of ethnic and religious groups that have been swallowed up by those countries over the course of their histories, it is likely an entirely valid concern. (Think Tibet in China; Chechnya in Russia.)
The Bush administration has encouraged Kosovo’s independence, and has moved quickly to recognize the new nation. Of course, as quickly as we paint Russia and China as being anti-freedom bad guys, we gloss over our own history regarding separation. An extremely costly war (both financially and in human life) was fought in this country 140+ years ago over whether a state(s) could opt out of the United States union. Slavery and economics created a deep national division in this country; the legality or not of succession created a civil war. The outcome of this war determined that, once in, no succession is allowed. It’s been a settled legal question for a century and a half, although the cultural divisions resulting from that war are still with us. Therefore we stand on somewhat shaky ground when we frequently encourage nationalistic separations around the world.
Except in Iraq. Here we continue to try stitch a country together that was created from yet another attempted intervention by post-World War I European powers to create a world map defined by their colonial histories and ambitions. Modern Iraq has existed only in the minds and force of successive despots, ending with Saddam Hussein. Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis are distinctive cultures, with their own histories of confrontation among themselves. The physical separation of these groups within Iraq has already happened through ethnic cleansing and a relocation of people into affinity enclaves.
Senator Joe Biden has long advocated a 3-region partition solution for Iraq. It is almost already in place now, with each group just waiting for our overdue departure to make it a formal reality. We should follow Senator Biden’s advice. Nations can be formed among people of mixed backgrounds where respect and shared values can be in place; witness this country over 300 years, though not without our periodic difficulties. But in the long run, nations cannot be built and sustained where there is no common aspiration, where a shared identity cannot be established around which to unify a people.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Ode To Missed Perfection
Indulge me, please, in a more personal entry to this blog. It is late Tuesday evening, two days after the Super Bowl, where my New England Patriots lost to the New York Giants. And I remain in a funk that has not yet been shaken over this entirely unexpected outcome. So I must ask myself “Why?”
The Giants legitimately earned their victory. There was one key to their chance, which everyone acknowledged going in: for any chance to win, they had to stop the mega-talented New England quarterback, Tom Brady. And they did. They took the gamble no other team had attempted, and threw every defensive thing they had at the quarterback, risking being burned and defeated by “the one big play.” But they succeeded. Eli Manning may have been selected as the game’s MVP, but that was a mis-call. The MVP was the collective Giants defensive line, who rose to a challenge and pulled it off. They are where the accolades should go.
The Patriots deserved the win. But they were not able to earn it when they needed it. They deserved a better end to a spectacular season of record-setting performances. The awards and records will be there for awhile, deservedly so. But to end it with that particular loss, that particular way, seems so wrong. I cannot possibly imagine how those 50+ guys must still feel at this moment; how many “should haves” and “if onlys” have been replayed in their minds over and over. My own imagination has certainly been on continual replay these past days, and it wasn’t even my game to play. So I can only commiserate and empathize with their all too human feelings from a distance.
I think perhaps my personal unending attachment to this loss reflects my disappointment in seeing excellence, if not perfection, go unachieved. We collectively came so close to seeing something that has been significantly missing this past decade: a demonstration of excellence that is all too rare, and is done on a scale that is sharable by the collective many. Few opportunities present themselves for such uplifting reaffirmation of human potential. In my lifetime, there has been the “greatest generation’s” accomplishment in Europe and Asia in 1945; stepping onto the moon in 1969; the fall of the Berlin Wall; the end of apartheid in South Africa; the indelible image of one man standing in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square in Peking. Various moments in sports and the arts have enhanced our sense of shared culture, such as the Olympic hockey “miracle on ice” victory at a similar time of great emotional need in America. Moments not just of excellence achieved, of arriving at a place well beyond expectations, but doing so in a way that invites millions of people to share in it together. Tiger Woods is unarguably the greatest golfer today, perhaps ever, with a string of accomplishments; but millions of people are not joined in together watching him on the 18th green.
That is the opportunity we have missed. With all of the cash rewards and riches flying around some of us, we nevertheless live today in such a time of mediocrity, missed opportunity, minimalist goals and divisive ambitions. Yet every now and then something is needed to remind us how far human beings can reach in certain rare moments. We have need of that reminder these days; I am saddened that we did not get it. So we can only hope yet again, “wait until next year.” Even the Red Sox finally won, for all of us.
The Giants legitimately earned their victory. There was one key to their chance, which everyone acknowledged going in: for any chance to win, they had to stop the mega-talented New England quarterback, Tom Brady. And they did. They took the gamble no other team had attempted, and threw every defensive thing they had at the quarterback, risking being burned and defeated by “the one big play.” But they succeeded. Eli Manning may have been selected as the game’s MVP, but that was a mis-call. The MVP was the collective Giants defensive line, who rose to a challenge and pulled it off. They are where the accolades should go.
The Patriots deserved the win. But they were not able to earn it when they needed it. They deserved a better end to a spectacular season of record-setting performances. The awards and records will be there for awhile, deservedly so. But to end it with that particular loss, that particular way, seems so wrong. I cannot possibly imagine how those 50+ guys must still feel at this moment; how many “should haves” and “if onlys” have been replayed in their minds over and over. My own imagination has certainly been on continual replay these past days, and it wasn’t even my game to play. So I can only commiserate and empathize with their all too human feelings from a distance.
I think perhaps my personal unending attachment to this loss reflects my disappointment in seeing excellence, if not perfection, go unachieved. We collectively came so close to seeing something that has been significantly missing this past decade: a demonstration of excellence that is all too rare, and is done on a scale that is sharable by the collective many. Few opportunities present themselves for such uplifting reaffirmation of human potential. In my lifetime, there has been the “greatest generation’s” accomplishment in Europe and Asia in 1945; stepping onto the moon in 1969; the fall of the Berlin Wall; the end of apartheid in South Africa; the indelible image of one man standing in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square in Peking. Various moments in sports and the arts have enhanced our sense of shared culture, such as the Olympic hockey “miracle on ice” victory at a similar time of great emotional need in America. Moments not just of excellence achieved, of arriving at a place well beyond expectations, but doing so in a way that invites millions of people to share in it together. Tiger Woods is unarguably the greatest golfer today, perhaps ever, with a string of accomplishments; but millions of people are not joined in together watching him on the 18th green.
That is the opportunity we have missed. With all of the cash rewards and riches flying around some of us, we nevertheless live today in such a time of mediocrity, missed opportunity, minimalist goals and divisive ambitions. Yet every now and then something is needed to remind us how far human beings can reach in certain rare moments. We have need of that reminder these days; I am saddened that we did not get it. So we can only hope yet again, “wait until next year.” Even the Red Sox finally won, for all of us.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Buying The Presidency
Only slightly into this year’s primary voting, drama and surprises have certainly been a regular occurrence. The primary campaigns also continue to affirm what was predicted: this will be a protracted exercise involving an incredible amount of money. In amounts that many of us could think of as better applied to a host of other needs in this country.
Generally, my goal is to try to be as non-political as possible in this blog, especially as regards plugging or advocating any particular party or candidate. However, one candidate is particularly disturbing to me on the issue of campaign financing: Mitt Romney. Admittedly, there are many things this candidate says that concern me, but one is his continuing emphasis on presenting himself as the “businessman candidate.” From this basis, he promotes that he will bring an understanding of economics and a business/managerial style to his performance as President. In fact, what he really illustrates is the world of the pampered super-rich and overpaid business executive of today: overly slick, excessively wealthy, oblivious to the immoral vertical wage structure that has evolved in America, and freely buying his/her toys of indulgence. Except this time Mitt Romney’s toy is the U.S. presidency, and he’s buying that toy from all of us. And he will make his sale using statements of beliefs that are drawn from, and are no more credible than, a focus-group based Madison Avenue advertising campaign. Two points to observe:
1. Candidate Romney has constantly stressed that one of the chief reasons and benefits for voting for him as the Republican Party’s nominee is that he has the funds to see the whole race through. Maybe this sounds good at first hearing. But these funds he references are, of course, not the funds he has raised from Americans who support his views and candidacy. They are funds from his own bank account. As onerous as our whole campaign financing environment is today, it is at least premised on the idea that funds raised come from people who believe in and support you as a candidate; therefore dollars raised equals one form of measurable support and a statement of viability of a candidate. (Or, it is a measure of how many favors and advantages people expect you will throw their way if you are elected, but we’ll save that discussion to another day!) To ask people to vote for me, instead of McCain. Huckabee, or another candidate, simply because I have more personal money than they to make it through the primaries, is highly distasteful and reflects an incredible non-understanding of the governing role of the presidency. Mitt Romney does not ask us to “vote for me because you believe in my abilities and vision”; instead, vote for me because “I am the richest.”
2. It was recently revealed that Romney is signing up students to solicit donations to his campaign. That is what many candidates do to try to mobilize and captivate the young and energetic emerging voters in this country. Except that Mr. Romney seems to have once again added a new twist to that idea: he is paying such student fund-raisers a 10% commission if they raise at least $1,000 for him. AND they become eligible to win “cool prizes” based upon the level of their results. This is a brand new technique for getting campaign money and attracting student leaders to your cause, never before practiced by a presidential candidate. Don’t bother attracting people to your ideas and persona; just buy them! Mitt Romney’s presidential candidacy is now inventory for your small business!
Both of these instances, combined with other related episodes, reflects just how distorted a person’s perspective can get by ambition and an inflated ego that sees the world only through one’s own lens of experience. Being a successful businessman is to be complimented, I have no issue with that. Seeing elective office as an inherently deserved prize to that business success, or seeing leadership and government as just another business management job, reflects a very frightening view of politics, government, and leadership. Especially when you advertise that skewed view so blatantly.
We all understand that the last 50 years have come to treat the election of public officials as just another sales campaign at the grocery store; the presidency as a can of soup. I remain surprised that none of the presidential debates have so far been held at a local Super Wal-Mart (at least to this point!). The good news: the American people have so far continued to draw their votes from their hearts instead of their wallets. All of Romney’s dollars have so far yielded pitiful returns on investments vis-à-vis his competition. (Think Huckabee in Iowa, McCain in South Carolina and Florida.) For a management consultant and venture capitalist who claims to be the only real businessman in the race, the results of his business management and funding strategies do not seem to make an overly impressive case for hiring him.
Once again, God bless the common sense of Americans. Mitt Romney is not the first, nor will he be the last, to try to buy elective office through the largess of their wealth. Many such political wanna-bes have thankfully been consigned to a footnote in history. These business-success stories do not understand that Americans do not really want a business executive as President; they already have a “boss” that they have tolerate every day at work. Americans still like the underdog, still want to be moved by someone who can relate to them, and are still moved towards governmental leaders by the force of their ideals and the intangible of leadership, not by their bank account.
Generally, my goal is to try to be as non-political as possible in this blog, especially as regards plugging or advocating any particular party or candidate. However, one candidate is particularly disturbing to me on the issue of campaign financing: Mitt Romney. Admittedly, there are many things this candidate says that concern me, but one is his continuing emphasis on presenting himself as the “businessman candidate.” From this basis, he promotes that he will bring an understanding of economics and a business/managerial style to his performance as President. In fact, what he really illustrates is the world of the pampered super-rich and overpaid business executive of today: overly slick, excessively wealthy, oblivious to the immoral vertical wage structure that has evolved in America, and freely buying his/her toys of indulgence. Except this time Mitt Romney’s toy is the U.S. presidency, and he’s buying that toy from all of us. And he will make his sale using statements of beliefs that are drawn from, and are no more credible than, a focus-group based Madison Avenue advertising campaign. Two points to observe:
1. Candidate Romney has constantly stressed that one of the chief reasons and benefits for voting for him as the Republican Party’s nominee is that he has the funds to see the whole race through. Maybe this sounds good at first hearing. But these funds he references are, of course, not the funds he has raised from Americans who support his views and candidacy. They are funds from his own bank account. As onerous as our whole campaign financing environment is today, it is at least premised on the idea that funds raised come from people who believe in and support you as a candidate; therefore dollars raised equals one form of measurable support and a statement of viability of a candidate. (Or, it is a measure of how many favors and advantages people expect you will throw their way if you are elected, but we’ll save that discussion to another day!) To ask people to vote for me, instead of McCain. Huckabee, or another candidate, simply because I have more personal money than they to make it through the primaries, is highly distasteful and reflects an incredible non-understanding of the governing role of the presidency. Mitt Romney does not ask us to “vote for me because you believe in my abilities and vision”; instead, vote for me because “I am the richest.”
2. It was recently revealed that Romney is signing up students to solicit donations to his campaign. That is what many candidates do to try to mobilize and captivate the young and energetic emerging voters in this country. Except that Mr. Romney seems to have once again added a new twist to that idea: he is paying such student fund-raisers a 10% commission if they raise at least $1,000 for him. AND they become eligible to win “cool prizes” based upon the level of their results. This is a brand new technique for getting campaign money and attracting student leaders to your cause, never before practiced by a presidential candidate. Don’t bother attracting people to your ideas and persona; just buy them! Mitt Romney’s presidential candidacy is now inventory for your small business!
Both of these instances, combined with other related episodes, reflects just how distorted a person’s perspective can get by ambition and an inflated ego that sees the world only through one’s own lens of experience. Being a successful businessman is to be complimented, I have no issue with that. Seeing elective office as an inherently deserved prize to that business success, or seeing leadership and government as just another business management job, reflects a very frightening view of politics, government, and leadership. Especially when you advertise that skewed view so blatantly.
We all understand that the last 50 years have come to treat the election of public officials as just another sales campaign at the grocery store; the presidency as a can of soup. I remain surprised that none of the presidential debates have so far been held at a local Super Wal-Mart (at least to this point!). The good news: the American people have so far continued to draw their votes from their hearts instead of their wallets. All of Romney’s dollars have so far yielded pitiful returns on investments vis-à-vis his competition. (Think Huckabee in Iowa, McCain in South Carolina and Florida.) For a management consultant and venture capitalist who claims to be the only real businessman in the race, the results of his business management and funding strategies do not seem to make an overly impressive case for hiring him.
Once again, God bless the common sense of Americans. Mitt Romney is not the first, nor will he be the last, to try to buy elective office through the largess of their wealth. Many such political wanna-bes have thankfully been consigned to a footnote in history. These business-success stories do not understand that Americans do not really want a business executive as President; they already have a “boss” that they have tolerate every day at work. Americans still like the underdog, still want to be moved by someone who can relate to them, and are still moved towards governmental leaders by the force of their ideals and the intangible of leadership, not by their bank account.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
The $150B Christmas Tree
A few weeks back, President Bush and Congress were locked into yet another legislative confrontation. This time it was over finalizing the 2008 federal budget (already 3 months late). The fight centered on the usual what to spend federal dollars on, and who should pay the taxes to support that spending. But it was also on the total size of the spending. Bush’s veto threat was aimed squarely at holding total spending to stay within a specified limit to minimize any resulting deficit.
Fast forward to the end of January, 2008. A light bulb seems to have gone off in the White House (no doubt helped by lobbying assistance from major banks and other corporations) that, golly darn, we could soon have a recession! A recession primarily brought on by self-imposed wounds to the financial industry. Wounds caused by a few years of stupid and predatory mortgage lending to people who clearly could not maintain such mortgages over the long term. Apparently a planned bill to rescue troubled mortgagees that also lets the lending companies off the hook for their mistakes is not enough. Now the entire country has to come to the rescue of inept corporations.
So how do government leaders sell this to us? As is typical, by bribery. Here’s $600, $1200, or some such amount, along with some good old Republican tax breaks. Go out, feel good, and spend your way into economic recovery. And let’s do it to the tune of $150,000,000,000.00!
And where did this $150B magically come from? One month ago we had no money to insure more kids against sickness, no money to invest in our crumbling infrastructure, no new money to support many legitimate opportunities that could make a significant difference in this country’s future. Of course, there was still plenty of unaudited money to support our Iraq misadventure, and the number and amounts of earmarked dollars to special congressional constituents seems to be virtually unchanged. But all that was supposed to be it. All the money that was available. So did Santa Claus decide to make a second round of handling out free gifts?
No, this $150B comes from yet again more borrowing, more debt. It will be underwritten by prosperous foreign countries, the same ones making a financial fortune off of their one-sided sales to us. It is debt that will stagnate and never really be paid back. Yet more debt passed on to our kids, and more limits on future discretionary spending for this country.
Now the detailed questions start to arise on how we should best spend this newly-discovered “pool of wealth.” Republican and Democratic leaders for once are in agreement: send almost everyone a check. Even though everyone agrees that “fast action” is required to stave off this recession, and this approach won’t be felt economically until the end of the year. Conversely, virtually all economists agree that expanding food stamps and unemployment benefits could be effected immediately and have the greatest impact the quickest; but those populations are not significant blocks of voters. I am willing to leave a specific approach to the wisdom of others, but please do not pander to what you obviously consider my apparent stupidity.
Mike Huckabee came out recently with the smartest idea for spending $150B we didn’t know we had. Instead of a 1-time money for folks to buy gasoline from oil companies already flush with incomprehensible profits, invest that short-term money in something tangible that will pay long-term recurring dividends. Investments like a crash rebuilding of our roads or other public benefit projects. Remember FDR’s WPA project in the 1930s? Rather than handing out cash, he hired people to build and create, and to keep them employed. 70 years later, we still have many of the roads, post offices, courthouses, schools, national park facilities to show for this wisdom.
Instead, we are just going to sprinkle play money like fairy dust all around the country to try to numb people into thinking that these government leaders of both political parties are being responsive to the country’s needs. For many of us, this will simply enlarge our cynicism towards this government’s irresponsibility and its inability to think and act with intelligence and substance. It is simply cash as a feel good drug to mask the economic pain. Principles and common sense be dammed. Yet another avoidance of our collective personal responsibility that has hallmarked these last 7 years.
Fast forward to the end of January, 2008. A light bulb seems to have gone off in the White House (no doubt helped by lobbying assistance from major banks and other corporations) that, golly darn, we could soon have a recession! A recession primarily brought on by self-imposed wounds to the financial industry. Wounds caused by a few years of stupid and predatory mortgage lending to people who clearly could not maintain such mortgages over the long term. Apparently a planned bill to rescue troubled mortgagees that also lets the lending companies off the hook for their mistakes is not enough. Now the entire country has to come to the rescue of inept corporations.
So how do government leaders sell this to us? As is typical, by bribery. Here’s $600, $1200, or some such amount, along with some good old Republican tax breaks. Go out, feel good, and spend your way into economic recovery. And let’s do it to the tune of $150,000,000,000.00!
And where did this $150B magically come from? One month ago we had no money to insure more kids against sickness, no money to invest in our crumbling infrastructure, no new money to support many legitimate opportunities that could make a significant difference in this country’s future. Of course, there was still plenty of unaudited money to support our Iraq misadventure, and the number and amounts of earmarked dollars to special congressional constituents seems to be virtually unchanged. But all that was supposed to be it. All the money that was available. So did Santa Claus decide to make a second round of handling out free gifts?
No, this $150B comes from yet again more borrowing, more debt. It will be underwritten by prosperous foreign countries, the same ones making a financial fortune off of their one-sided sales to us. It is debt that will stagnate and never really be paid back. Yet more debt passed on to our kids, and more limits on future discretionary spending for this country.
Now the detailed questions start to arise on how we should best spend this newly-discovered “pool of wealth.” Republican and Democratic leaders for once are in agreement: send almost everyone a check. Even though everyone agrees that “fast action” is required to stave off this recession, and this approach won’t be felt economically until the end of the year. Conversely, virtually all economists agree that expanding food stamps and unemployment benefits could be effected immediately and have the greatest impact the quickest; but those populations are not significant blocks of voters. I am willing to leave a specific approach to the wisdom of others, but please do not pander to what you obviously consider my apparent stupidity.
Mike Huckabee came out recently with the smartest idea for spending $150B we didn’t know we had. Instead of a 1-time money for folks to buy gasoline from oil companies already flush with incomprehensible profits, invest that short-term money in something tangible that will pay long-term recurring dividends. Investments like a crash rebuilding of our roads or other public benefit projects. Remember FDR’s WPA project in the 1930s? Rather than handing out cash, he hired people to build and create, and to keep them employed. 70 years later, we still have many of the roads, post offices, courthouses, schools, national park facilities to show for this wisdom.
Instead, we are just going to sprinkle play money like fairy dust all around the country to try to numb people into thinking that these government leaders of both political parties are being responsive to the country’s needs. For many of us, this will simply enlarge our cynicism towards this government’s irresponsibility and its inability to think and act with intelligence and substance. It is simply cash as a feel good drug to mask the economic pain. Principles and common sense be dammed. Yet another avoidance of our collective personal responsibility that has hallmarked these last 7 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)