Iraq, not Waterloo: Please learn from the past eight years President Obama (Part One.) By N. Paul McAuliffe

On July 19^th, 2009 Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), while taking part in a conference call with conservative interest groups, reiterated his opposition to the healthcare reforms proposed by President Barrack Obama and high-ranking congressional Democrats. “If we are able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.” While Senator DeMint’s remarks were caulis, divisive, and mostly self-serving, they were not entirely misguided. But Waterloo is a poor reference—though it does pander to the increasingly populist Republican Party and their perennial disdain of all things French. A more accurate comparison would have been to assert that this could be Obama’s Iraq. The president has positioned himself, so far, to be defined by the success—or failure—of being able to pass a massive healthcare “reform” bill. President Obama should, however, seek to learn from his much-maligned predecessor, in that, the Bush presidency was one plagued with grandiose political plans, partisan dominance, and, what’s more, an overwhelming desire for political success. President George W. Bush built up so much momentum behind his plans to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein that a he may have had no choice but to invade, not matter the potential pitfalls.[1] Concurrently, the more Obama beats the drum for healthcare “reform”, the more he may feel the need to “succeed.” While a massive healthcare bill will not result in a foreign policy disaster that has already taken the lives of thousands of Americans, nor nearly 100,000 Iraqis, the negative repercussions may be felt for decades. Moreover, while a retooling of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy may have been a foreign policy challenge, taking a step back and seeking a more pragmatic approach to healthcare reform would not harm the US image abroad, and, furthermore, may enhance Obama’s image at home.

Lead and succeed

President Obama is a gifted orator, an intellectual, and has shown an ability to adapt. He must display those qualities again, and, more importantly, a desire to actually lead. During the 2008 presidential election, President Obama managed to win over the majority of moderate voters despite being rated one of the most liberal senators in Washington. Those of us who contribute to this blog, like many Americans, hoped that Obama would live up to his promises and seek to work with conservative members of congress—in particular the moderates. This would be in the president’s interest for two main reasons. First of all, the Democrats enjoy such an advantage in both houses that they do not really need support from their Republican counterparts whose party is much maligned and in need of some degree of reinvention. Secondly, Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) have seemingly taken control of Washington. This does not sit right with many moderate democrats, not to mention the increasingly populist GOP. Whether or not it was President Obama’s intention to delegate increased responsibilities to congressional democrats or, as some have accused, it was just his naiveté, it’s time for him to take the reins. Many high-ranking democrats seem to have diminished competencies since the departure of President Bush. Politically it would behoove the president to distance himself from these enigmatic democrats and embrace moderate republicans. He will most likely lose the democratic majority in one or both houses in 2010.

Change or victory?

President Obama should also seek to focus more on actually achieving his objective; which is different from just passing the healthcare bill. Rather than once again drawing a comparison to President George W. Bush’s initial Iraq, I would be remiss in not discussing President Bush’s ill-fated attempt at healthcare reform. I do not doubt, as with the majority of his policies, that the somewhat nefarious president did not truly seek actual and meaningful healthcare reforms during his presidency. Medicare Part D was originally intended to reduce national healthcare costs—especially for seniors, by reducing the costs of pharmaceuticals through a combination of negotiations and subsidies. But President Bush quickly ran up against the mighty pharmaceutical lobby and its massive war chest. Their lobby, which is able to gain access to party and Washington elite alike, posed a grand challenge to Bush’s original policy. The pharmaceutical lobby has no ubiquitous ideological or party affiliations, as such, the Bush administration may have seen challenging the lobby as both potentially futile and perilous. President Obama should make use of the current political climate. While he is being called a socialist, fecklessly populist icons are seemingly overrunning the GOP. Rather than embracing championing market-based reforms, many conservative politicians are shamelessly using fear mongering and name calling to wholly oppose any reforms. Congressional conservatives have pandered themselves into a corner, and Obama could possibly out the moderate conservatives by extending the olive branch of pragmatism and simplicity to the conservatives in congress.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration sought an apparent political victory over effectual reform—choosing instead to include fixed, non-negotiable prices for pharmaceuticals, thusly increasing the actual cost of healthcare and the continued crowding-out effect in the healthcare market. Likewise, President Obama faces a similar choice; he may either seek actual reform—change, or perceived political victory. The ever-changing healthcare bill grows more massive and loses efficacy by the day.

The US healthcare system is fraught with ever-increasing costs and institutionalized inefficiency. Whether feckless “conservative” pundits fail to see or willingly ignore it, the fact is that healthcare reform in the US is needed. This is not an indictment of physicians, insurers, the pharmaceutical industry, or, for that matter, current politicians. Rather, it is just yet another unfortunate byproduct the American political climate. Unlike “fighting terrorism” or “cutting taxes”, healthcare reform does not pay immediate dividends in political capital. Traditional conservatives, who are being drowned out by their populist usurpers, favor pragmatic and specific reforms. ObamaCare is growing increasingly hapless and costly. Presidential hopeful Obama championed “Change” as theme of his campaign. While large-scale change and, moreover, broad reforms are purposefully nearly impossible achieve, healthcare is in dire need of meaningful reform.

An American solution

I took a class once with man who uttered seemingly Marxian statements ad nauseum. I usually braced myself for extremely ideologically leftist comments every time I heard his voice. But one day who put forth a wonderfully insightful statement. “We don’t a Canadian, French, or German solution to healthcare. No, no, no. Our system is too awesome. We need a thoroughly American solution.” This statement was not only pragmatic, but also prophetic. The states he mentioned, as well as many others, face crippling healthcare and entitlements costs in the very near future.

The US is still the lone superpower in the international political economy. Despite the astonishingly rapacious economic rise of China, the US remains the most important power-player on the planet. In many industries, the US either sets the standard or is the envy of much of the world. Concurrently, the US should not be surprised to find out that skyrocketing healthcare costs are becoming an international pandemic. Many states that have managed to institute universal healthcare are now burdened with potentially exponentially increasing healthcare costs. The US should actually seek a pragmatic and systematic approach to healthcare reform. This may difficult, due to the face that political dividends may not be immediately forthcoming—at least from a domestic standpoint. But the US has been admired throughout most of the world for its ability to quickly change to meet challenges. Moreover, effectual and meaningful reforms in the US would only reaffirm American reverence throughout much of the world. For better or for worse, the rest of the world looks to the US for policy directives. Americans should not extrapolate such admirations into validation that perpetuates ignorance, but, moreover, as the breadth of opportunity and responsibility the US can meet in the international political economy.

As with global climate change, the US still has a tremendous opportunity reassert itself has the sole hegemonic power. It is unfortunate but true; the extremely fickle US political system is reflected worldwide; making effectual change in many areas difficult—but not impossible. It is not solely inherent greed that drives corporations; on the contrary, it is sustainability. Much as energy conglomerates will seek out possible new reserves and government protections or subsidies, corporations within the healthcare field will seek out policies that help protect their respective sustainability. As with many issues, from local to state to national levels, it is tangled web of complex and, what’s more, massive policies that have contributed to extremely exorbitant healthcare costs in the US. In the current American vernacular “business” or “finance” may be frowned upon, but unless we treat healthcare as a business, we may never decrease the inefficiency that is truly crippling the American tax-payer. Whatever populist figureheads from either side of the perceived political spectrum say, failed healthcare reform will cost American taxpayers. David Goldhill wonderfully illustrates the breadth of the inefficiencies, as well as the challenges to healthcare reform in the title article from the September 2009 issue of The Atlantic.[2]

---

[1] “Plan of Attack” by Bob Woodward

[2] “How American Healthcare Killed My Father” by David Goldhill, The Atlantic, September 2009.

Introduction (Disclaimer)

For now there really isn’t a faster way to get thoughts on the internet (besides Twitter… but who are we kidding). In light of this, Noel and I have formed a blog… rather he started one and invited me to be a contributor… (like we work for the New Yorker or something… ha, ‘Family Guy’ references) so our endless political conversations might have a chance to see the light of day… or the light of a computer screen. I’ll make one thing clear, in my early posts I will not have well referenced, well thought out essays, not until I brush up a bit in the hopes of sounding smart. For now it will be what you are accustomed to from me, observational anger at the sight of idiocy… which you don’t need do dive deep into copies of The Atlantic or The Economist to notice.

I do not want to speak too much for Noel so I won’t, but to sum up, He’s a moderate conservative, and I’m a moderate liberal (I smell a sitcom… damn it I did it again). One thing we both, very much, have in common… we hate two sided arguments. If topics as complicated as Health Care, the Economy, Foreign Policy, and blah freaking blah have two sides then you are a deluded individual who is probably influenced by a very tiny egocentric world (Glenn Beck).

Hopefully we can get this puppy off the ground… and hopefully I will have some writings that do not use works like “Freaking” and stolen ‘Family Guy’ ideas. However I am committed to comedy… that much will not change. Let us know your thoughts and ideas.

Real problems that don't exist: How global climate change and global poverty are changing global politics

While the need to address global warming and climate change seems to be gaining momentum in the US, poverty and global development seems of far less concern to many Americans, what’s more, to nations in the Western hemisphere. These global concerns need not only be addressed, but it should also be noted that they emanate, in part, from a new international relations paradigm. In the February 1994 issue of The Atlantic Robert Kaplan states unequivocally “How scarcity, crime, overpopulation, tribalism, and disease are rapidly destroying the social fabric of our planet.”[1] After the fall of the Soviet Union an instant power vacuum was created within the Caucasus, a region still stricken with rampant poverty and cultural conflict. Departures of Western influence from many nations all over the world has also promulgated poverty and failed states. Kaplan stipulates to the Huntingtonian argument that without foreign influence interstate and intrastate conflict would occur along cultural, religious, and societal lines.[2] Kaplan goes farther; arguing that what was being witnessed with the fall of the Soviet Union was only the beginning. “Most people believe that the political earth since 1989 has undergone immense change. But it is minor compared with what is yet to come. The breaking apart and remaking of the atlas is only now beginning…Michael Vlahos, a long-range thinker for the U.S. Navy, warns, ‘We are not in charge of the environment and the world is not following us. It is going in many directions. Do not assume that democratic capitalism is the last word in human social evolution.”[3] Global warming and climate change are becoming increasingly linked and intertwined with global development and poverty, in many ways the two can be addressed through similar policies. Kaplan argues that global warming and climate change is much more widely accepted as a global issue, as where global development and poverty are not. But the latter is a false assumption. As poverty proliferates throughout developed world, it will, through mass migrations, spread throughout much of the developed world. Thusly, the daunting challenges of overpopulation, disease, and crime will subsequently be a direct threat to domestic security and stability.

Much of the developing world is due to see their populations continue to expand in the coming decades, even with the disturbingly high percentages of their populations being infected with life-threatening diseases.[4] Many of these nations are forced to do whatever they can in order to keep output and production at levels high enough to simply sustain life within their borders, often at the expense of public health and the health of the environment, “The political and strategic impact of surging populations, spreading, disease, deforestation and soil erosion, water depletion, air pollution, and, possibly, rising sea levels in critical, overcrowded regions like the Nile Delta and Bangladesh—developments that will prompt mass migrations, and in turn, incite group conflicts—will be the core foreign-policy challenge from which most others will ultimately emanate, arousing the public and uniting assorted interests left over from the Cold War.”[5] Rampant poverty is not something that can be defined upon regional, ethnic, or religious lines. While many nations, particularly China and nations in Africa, see the largest amounts of their impoverished citizens living in rural areas, the rampant poverty and continued overcrowding in many of the world’s largest cities are equally alarming. With the exceptions of Tokyo, New York, and Los Angeles, in 2000 most of the world’s largest urban epicenters were not among the countries with the highest GDP.[6] The developing world is also far behind in the quality, some of the treatments still used in some parts of the world have not been used in the US since the 18^th century.[7] The US and the West’s commitments to delivering aid to much of the developing world is commendable, but leaves much to be desired. Further, since 2001 the US has decreased the amount of money it allocates to aid.[8] Many of the nations most in need are of little or no strategic value to Western powers, moreover the US.

Much of the world has also developed a fractious relationship with the West along the lines of globalism. Many developing nations see globalism as another form of Western exploitation. “In the past quarter-century, the development economics imposed by the rich countries on the poorest countries has been too much like the medicine in the 18^th century, when doctors used leeches to draw blood from their patients, often killing them in the process.”[9] Economic liberalization has yet to alleviate much of the poverty in the developing world. The developing world lacking in infrastructures and institutions that wealthier, developed nations enjoy and also help to allow for global economic liberalization to function successfully. “The most adverse effects have risen from the liberalization of financial and capital markets—which has posed risks to developing countries without commensurate rewards.”[10]. Economists are affably quick to point out, however, that a global economic liberalization should benefit everyone because it should increase international economic output, therein increasing trade, and thus increasing capital acquisitions and development for all parties involved. Economists, however, are often criticized for overlooking inequities.[11] In a sense, globalism could be viewed as the last vestiges of European imperialism in many parts of the world. While many territories have no interests in being incorporated as such, those territories still hold resources or commodities of interest for the West. Furthermore, globalism has allowed for Western powers to increase their trade without maintaining a physical presence in the region. Concurrently, as Kaplan points out, there are two looming challenges to the economic development of these states; both are byproducts of similar transgressions—“The Lies of Mapmakers.”[12] First, due to the fact that foreigners arbitrarily drew many of their borderlines, those respective nations lack legitimized governments. Secondly, due also, in part, to the false borderlines, different ethnic groups and tribes with histories of conflictual relationships, now must cooperate in order to bring about cultural, economic, and ultimately, national growth. This is a tall mountain to climb, and in many cases, many choose not to attempt it. An international backlash to globalism has also changed the political landscape. “A political era driven by environmental stress, increased cultural sensitivity, unregulated urbanization, and refugee migrations is an era divinely created for the spread and intensification on Islam, already the world’s fastest-growing religion.[13]

“Climate change will be the main driver. Nine out of every ten disasters are now climate-related. Recorded disasters have doubled in number from 200 to more than 400 over the past two decades.”[14] Increased aid to the developing world is necessary for two distinct reasons. First, while natural disasters have increased in frequency, the response times to deliver much-needed aid to affected countries has not decreased. As disasters continue to befall nations whom are ill equipped to handle the aftermath on their own, more readily available aid is an imperative. Like development, addressing climate change requires cooperation. “The central flaw of the Kyoto Protocol can be explained in terms of the underlying structure of the climate change issue. Climate change involves the intersection of a complex set of intergenerational and intragenerational collective action problems. This structure, and in particular its intergenerational collective action problems, has not been adequately appreciated. Yet until it is, we are doomed to an ineffectual environmental policy.”[15] Even those nations that don’t dissolve into tribalism face inherent challenges. India has routinely trumpeted the cause of global warming and climate change, but putting aside its already troublingly high poverty rate and environmental concerns, it also has regional tensions that hinder working towards truly addressing climate change. What’s more, India has the largest Muslim population of any nation living within it’s borders, which makes it even more difficult to work towards addressing climate change within its own borders. Likewise, another emerging power from the same continent, China, poses an even more daunting threat to climate change and global warming. China propagates its own right to development, in which polluting is an unfortunate side effect. But China is unique. Much of its population still suffers under immense poverty, but yet its GDP grew by astounding levels over the past few decades. Also, China is now the largest polluter in the world.[16]

Global development and poverty, and climate change and global warming, those are two problems that Kaplan argues will lead to societal decay, crime, and future international conflict. Again, they are both problems that the West has been reluctant to address. While the US and much of the developed world may be focused on the Middle East, Kaplan argues that the African continent may be the destination for a new kind of war. Like some cities in the Middle East and Asia, many cities, settlement, and towns in Africa are not even represented on maps.[17] Also, these areas, moreover, these countries should be of concern to the West. Not only because of their tumultuous nature, repeated coups, and continued conflict. The West need also be concerned over the continuous spread of rampant poverty that through mass migrations might be spread throughout the world, but also because these nations must completely disregard public and environmental precautions in the hopes of providing for the populations. Furthermore, looking to what other nations have endured, these nations, assuming they do not slip into tribalism, may need to compete with their regional neighbors in orders to acquire whatever scarce resources may exist.

States will need to stand up in order to survive. “No longer will these states be so firmly propped up by the West or the Soviet Union.”[18] Indeed not. In Kaplan’s new paradigm within international relations, due in large part to globalism, states will not be propped up unless they hold an economic or strategic interest. Without efficient means of production, states will do whatever they can meet the necessary levels of production to either remain globally relevant, or simply adequately produce for the respective populaces. Contrarily, impoverished nations will not be able to address climate change. Additionally, impoverished nations will not be able to deal with or manage the ever-increasing amounts of disasters related to global climate change that may befall their nations. Likewise, the people will move to where the jobs are in hopes of alleviating their poverty. Subsequently, overcrowding and overpopulation will take hold, thusly leading to an even greater rate of the spread of life-threatening diseases and crime. Once again, this all may seem to be a doomsday scenario for those of us in the West, but without a meaningful and effective policy to both global development and poverty, and global warming and climate change, the global threat remains tangible and real. “Africa may be marginal in terms of conventional late-twentieth-century conceptions of strategy, but in an age of cultural and racial clash, when national defense is increasingly local, Africa’s distress will exert a destabilizing influence on the United States.”[19] Mass migrations might in fact bring such destabilizing influences to the US, as well as to the West. While global development and poverty is not issue to have gained the kind of momentum as global warming and climate change has throughout the West, it is, once again, not an issue that can be separated from the latter. Still, the US might learn a lot from studying the problem of Mexico City. Mexico City is one of the most highly populated, additionally, overcrowded cities in the world, as well as one of the most polluted. Of course, such a study brings forth an entirely unique, and, in some cases, an unwelcome set of challenges. According to Kaplan, the thought that man possesses such capability to truly address this paradigm is idealistic and irrational. But that does not, however, mean that man should not address the situation. Again, mass migrations will not only spread poverty, disease, increased overcrowding, but also spread tribalism. “As state power fades—and with it the state’s ability to help weaker groups within society, not to mention other states—people and cultures around the world will be thrown back upon their own strengths and weaknesses, with fewer equalizing mechanisms to protect them.”[20]

---

[1] “The Coming Anarchy”, Robert Kaplan, The Atlantic, February 1994

[2] “The Clash of Civilizations”, Samuel Huntington, Foreign Affairs, summer 1993.

[3] “The Coming Anarchy”, Robert Kaplan, The Atlantic, February 1994.

[4] “The End of Poverty”, Jeffrey Sachs, Time, March 6, 2005.

[5] “The Coming Anarchy”, Robert Kaplan, The Atlantic, February 1994.

[6] “Planet of Slums”, Rick Davis, Verso, New York, NY; 2006.

[7] “The End of Poverty”, Jeffrey Sachs, Time, March 6, 2005.

[8] “The End of Poverty”, Jeffrey Sachs, Time, March 6, 2005.

[9] “The End of Poverty:, Jeffrey Sachs, Time, March 6, 2005.

[10] “Globalism’s Discontents”, Joseph E. Stitzglitz

[11] “More or Less Equal”, World Development Report

[12] “The Coming Anarchy”, Robert Kaplan, The Atlantic, February 1994.

[13] “The Coming Anarchy”, Richard Kaplan, The Atlantic, February 1994.

[14] “More help now, please: How to tackle tomorrow’s disasters”, John Holmes, The Economist: The World in 2009, 2008.

[15] “The Global Warming Tragedy and the Dangerous Illusion of the Kyoto Protocol”, Stephen M. Gardiner

[16] “As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly Extremes”, Joseph Kahn and Jim Yardley, The New York Times, August 26, 2007.

[17] “The Coming Anarchy”, Richard Kaplan, The Atlantic, February 1994.

[18] “The Coming Anarchy”, Richard Kaplan, The Atlantic, February 1994.

[19] “The Coming Anarchy”, Richard Kaplan, The Atlantic, February 1994.

[20] “The Coming Anarchy”, Robert Kaplan, February 1994.