Mr. Limbaugh Goes to Washington

In the age of the 24-hour news cycle, the unrelenting battlefield of cable news, the blogosphere, talk radio, and politics as team sport, political debates have become insanely directed by derision, fear, pride, and xenophobia.  Civil debates have become passé, taken over by pervasive; moreover, cowardly, rhetorical knife fights.  Such feckless and irresponsible rhetoric used to be mainly issued by loudmouthed pundits whose only interest was in ratings—for example, Rush Limbaugh. 

Lawmakers have always had to dabble in the in the muck-raking, and false-promises industries, but, at the end of the day—and sometimes to their detriment, most of them would eventually buckle to their consciences, thereby engaging in compromise and negotiation, and, more importantly, seek to, in theory, serve those whom they were elected to serve. 

The United States has long needed campaign finance reform.  What’s more, voter activism on the issue is direly needed as the Supreme Court has ruled that campaign contributions from corporations’ are a form a “free speech”.   While I believe that our society in America is insanely bereft of personal responsibility, I continually observe that many of those Americans who support the conservative axiom of “personal responsibility and small government”, are supporting politicians who do not, in reality, stand for those same principles. 

Both parties whore themselves out to special interests—after all, they control that corrupt cash needed to run those divisive commercials we all see on TV.  Politicians will spew whatever tripe they believe will ingratiate themselves to voters or their respective party; but, ultimately, they would, traditionally, negotiate towards consensus. 

This new decision by the Supreme Court has essentially allowed corporate America to fight whatever regulations they despise with potentially unlimited coffers.  Business chiefs clothe themselves in the “infallibility” of free markets. But those very same special interests that are rallying against often enjoy the economics of managed capitalism; government contracts, subsidies, tax breaks, and, more ominously, bailouts financed by tax revenue.  Economists, especially in America, have typically favored managed capitalism—including subsidies and bailouts—because it allows for economic stability.  Regulation is necessary, just as speech is not entirely free. 

Big Mouth

David Frum wrote an article that was distributed by Newsweek, amongst others, that derided the influence of cantankerous super-pundit, Rush Limbaugh.  Frum’s hypothesis was that Limbaugh made his money railing, most egregiously, against Clinton; but, sadly, withered during the Bush years.  Limbaugh could only remain truly relevant when there was a democrat in office. 

Like most pundits, Limbaugh’s talents are that of a gifted radioman, he can obviously entertain his listeners.  But Rush has relied at least as much on his qualities that cannot be considered to be talent, and, what’s more, border on the irresponsible.  It requires no talent to be loud.  It requires no talent to be xenophobic.  It requires no talent to be intransigent.  For the most part, however, the worst byproducts of Rush’s rhetoric are ignorance, polarization, and encouraging a xenophobic worldview.  Rush nearly snipes at the government from the airwaves.

Sinking your own ship

In the aforementioned article, David Frum contends that such grandstanding and vitriol hampers the Republican Party by frightening independent, moderate, and, especially, young voters away from the party.  “Rush Limbaugh is a seriously unpopular figure among the voters that conservatives and Republicans need to reach. Forty-one percent of independents have an unfavorable opinion of him, according to the new NEWSWEEK Poll. Limbaugh is especially off-putting to women: his audience is 72 percent male, according to Pew Research. Limbaugh himself acknowledges his unpopularity among women.”  Frum continues to presciently assert that allowing, as “Rahm Emanuel on Face the Nation yesterday: ‘the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican party,’" is caustic and detrimental to a party that is trying to distance itself from the failures of the Bush administration.  “In 1984 Reagan won young voters by 20 points; the elder Bush won voters under 30 again in 1988. Since that year, the Democrats have won the under-30 vote in five consecutive presidential elections. Voters who turned 20 between 2000 and 2005 are the most lopsidedly Democratic age cohort in the electorate. If they eat right, exercise and wear seat belts, they will be voting against George W. Bush well into the 2060s.”

Not only is it unfortunate that Frum’s article was not more popular with his fellow conservatives, (Frum is a staunch conservative and writes that the policies of liberalism are the policies of failure), but it is, nevertheless, lamentable that many republican politicians have bought into the politics of Rush Limbaugh lock-stock-and-barrel. 

Less than a year into Obama’s presidency republican lawmakers—not just pundits—were frothing at the mouth.  Many put forth that their overarching goal was to resist anything that Obama wanted to accomplish and make sure he became a one-term president.  Rather than, as Frum suggests, gaining conservative momentum by showing how, possibly, liberal policies were hindering their lives—as conservatives did during the Reagan administration, the GOP was foolhardily focusing its collective rage on President Obama.  It was an indicator of things to come; many GOP lawmakers were more interested in getting into a street fight with the president than engaging in the pursuit of good governance.   Many GOP have chosen the politics of Rush.

Irresponsible lawmakers would rather snipe at Obama than get involved bipartisan efforts to address the important and critical issues they were elected to deal with.  But they are not benignly shouting at the government from afar; they are shooting holes in the government from the inside.  And, what’s worse, after they shot a hole in the boat, they hide in the weeds and blame Obama. 

This is not meant to be a general critique of the Republican Party or an insult to Tea Partiers.  There are plenty of competent and responsible lawmakers in the GOP ranks that have shown a willingness to negotiate and compromise.  Even amongst those Tea Party republicans who refused to budge on raising the debt ceiling, there were republican who were willing to cut spending in areas most republicans—even some democrats—would never dare to touch; defense spending, oil subsidies, and others.  That’s a far cry from only cutting social programs, programs that help middle and lower class families and individuals. 

How to lose votes and alienate the youth

Another problem with practicing the politics of anger, fear, and xenophobia, is that the target base is limited and getting smaller.  Many young conservatives and urban voters did not vote for McCain the last election.  The cantankerous rhetoric of extreme social conservatism being championed by many of the loudest pundits and politicians repel those same voters, who, what’s more, are the voters that the GOP needs to appeal to.

There are a lot of young people in America who are against stifling government regulations; government spending that continues to outpace revenue, and an overactive government.  But many young conservatives aren’t opposed to gay marriage, favor renewable energy, and have a worldview is more tolerant than many of the loudest members of the GOP.

Many republicans and conservatives practice the politics of compromise, intelligence, and temperance, but many of them have found themselves drowned out by the deafening blustering of party zealots. 

Tim Pawlenty was on the button when he succinctly said, in response to a question as to why he wasn’t more forceful, that the loudest person in the room is simply that, the loudest person in the room.  Volume doesn’t equivocate to intelligence or righteousness, instead; rather, volume can give way to fecklessness.  

Good luck, Mitt

Despite being absent from the Fox News GOP presidential hopeful debate in South Carolina on May 5^th, 2011, Mitt Romney is still considered by many to the frontrunner for the GOP nomination to challenge Obama in 2012.  Romney sought the nomination in 2008, but came up short against former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and the eventual nominee, Senator John McCain.  Like McCain, Romney has a track record of appealing to independent voters and, more impressively, at times, democratic voters.  Further, he has a proven history of effectively being able to reach across the aisle.  Also, Romney has broken from recent Republican trends, instituting universal health care and environmental reforms while governor of Massachusetts.  But, finally, like McCain he faces daunting challenges—like he did in 2008—in order to secure the nomination.  In order to win the nomination, Romney must downplay the qualities that make him appealing to independents and centrist democrats in the hopes of wooing firebrand republicans.  While Mitt Romney is certainly a candidate those of us at The Moderate Dispatch would love to see on the ballot in 2012, it seems highly unlikely.

While Mitt Romney is a devout Mormon, he is not going to deliver fiery sermons from the stump or assert the need to thoroughly promote Christian values in American politics and society.  Many Americans, especially those from the republican bastion Bible Belt, have expressed hesitance in voting for a Mormon for president. His persona seems is one of a congenial, educated, policy wonk, rather than that of a combative, ideologue with a mercurial temper—the kind of persona that is popular amongst the conservative blogosphere and punditry.   

Like fellow hopeful former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty—also a very electable candidate, Romney has had to run away from centrist policies and reforms.  In 2008, this distancing from his policies manifested itself in making Romney into an epically boring candidate.  Sardonic comedian, Jason Jones, lampooned Romney as if his view of America was one from the 1950s sitcom Leave it to Beaver.  Like Pawlenty, Romney understands the need to distance himself from rhetoric that would make him come across as a policy wonk or an academic—two things which he very much is.  Lamentably, most rhetoric at GOP events is heavy on hyperbole and saber rattling.  This is not suggest, however, that any political function is without such ineffectual, ill-informed stump speeches or debates.  But, while once more of the vote from college educated Americans, the GOP currently bemoans and decries academic virtues.  What is an Ivy League-educated candidate supposed to do?

While it appears that the infusion of Tea Party candidates into the legislature has caused a minor shift into how the GOP operates, it does not appear as if the party has been able to shake loose its fire-and-brimstone façade.  The very fact that the hapless Rick Santorum is considered a strong contender for the GOP nomination demonstrates how difficult it will be for electable candidates to receive the nomination from their own party.  To do so, Romney will have to, once again, attempt to walk the tightrope between firebrand republicans and moderate conservatives that the party may have purged after McCain brought on Sarah Palin to be his potential vice president.  McCain himself attempted this same strategy in 2008.  Whether he was successful in courting the far right, or simply being the strongest candidate in a very week field, is up for debate.  Likewise, whether the Palin section doomed his campaign in the general election, or whether a republican candidate could have been successful in the election, is also debatable.  Whatever the case, Mitt Romney may well find the run up to the GOP primaries more arduous than campaigning against President Obama.  

Bad Man, Bad Host

I was working late on the evening of May 2^nd, 2011 when I felt my phone vibrate seemingly on end.  Without even pulling my phone out of my pocket I was able to ascertain as to what the excitement was.  In passing, a man gave me nod and said, “I just heard on the radio that we killed bin Laden.  He was hit with a missile or something.”  Obviously, it was the “or something” statement that was correct, as every news agency and cable network—including ESPN—announced that a team of U.S. military special operations personnel, led by the legendary SEAL Team 6, had shot and killed Osama bin Laden after a brief fire fight at bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan. 

My immediate response was one of skepticism—maybe the man had misunderstood some other report.  But after seeing the deluge of texts from friends and family, and the plethora of tweets, I felt there was a high likelihood this event—nearly two decades in the making--had finally come to fruition.  After getting a free moment to check the reports on the Internet, my reaction was initially one of relief.  Unlike, many of my fellow Americans shown on television news reports, I was not overcome with ebullient nationalism and nascent unity—however fleeting it may have been.  Osama bin Laden was still the face of global terror, as well as it’s galvanizing voice, and his death does make the world a safer place.  But bin Laden had failed in his war against United States.  Bin Laden’s cowardly and terrible attack on American civilians had yielded his desired results: a conflict between the American military and his “holy warriors.”  Bin Laden was embarrassed when his adversary was able push back his own forces, as well as those of his Taliban host’s, using a relatively small military contingent—Special Operations, CIA specialists, and coordinated air and missile strikes.  Like most many Americans, however, my mind immediately went to wondering how this would affect American foreign and military policy in Afghanistan and, moreover, Pakistan.

Pakistan Asks for More Cooperation from the CIA

In early April 2011 Pakistani officials asked their American counterparts within the diplomatic and intelligence agencies to be share more of the intelligence they had gathered on terrorist entities operating within it’s borders—and, likely, Afghanistan, as well.  Furthermore, they asked the CIA to drastically reduce missile strikes made by Predator Drones within Pakistan.  Pakistani leaders had been frustrating the Obama administration as well as the US military as they fierily denounced the attacks as not only an attack on Pakistani sovereignty, but they also claimed the attacks exacted massive collator damage—claims that were generally unfounded.  However, when confronted by officials like the late Richard Holbrooke and General David Patreaus, who continually asked Pakistani leaders to not publicly criticize the drone attacks, the Pakistani’s would attempt to elucidate their agreement that the drone attacks were helpful and their criticisms were necessary in order to remain politically viable. 

At the time such requests seemed utterly laughable.  While Pakistan is hardly the greatest benefactor when it comes to US foreign aid contributions—receiving an estimated $3 billion annually, of which nearly half is intended to be used for humanitarian purposes, the rogue state has been given a great deal of leeway. 

Firstly, Pakistan possesses WMD and, at best, has failed to notice that the man who helped most in the development of their nuclear weapons program, nuclear scientist and metallurgical engineer, A.Q. Khan, was willing to sell his expertise to other rogue states such as North Korea and Libya.  Secondly, Pakistan’s government is considered one of the most corrupt in the world, ranked the 143^rd most corrupt government by Transparency International, between such luminaries as Zimbabwe and Iran.  Pakistan’s government operates, essentially, at the behest of the military.  Furthermore, Pakistan’s intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), not only views the Taliban as a strategic asset but, moreover, has been implicated in harboring and training terrorists such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), which allegedly carried out terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India in 2008 that killed over 300 people.  Many reports have surfaced that suggest that, at the least, the LeT terrorists who took part in the attacks had ISI handlers.

When US officials expressed that they were mulling over Pakistan’s request to reduce the CIA’s role and share more intelligence in Pakistan, it should have seemingly offended the sensibilities of even the most dovish of foreign policy wonks.  As Tom Paulson wrote on Humanosphere, most of what the US gives to Pakistan is “mostly for political reasons,” and, especially now, it needs to be put under intense criticism.  What’s more, as previously mentioned, Pakistan has shown itself time and time again to be a rogue, repressive state that is not interested confronting Islamic extremism. 

Immediately following the announcement that the symbol of global terror had been brought to justice, it was reported that, what was widely suspected was true, Osama bin Laden had been residing.  But, disturbingly, he had not been hiding in cave in along the frontier provinces near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, a long-time safe haven for both Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives.  Rather, the man responsible for perpetrating the worst attack against America since Pearl Harbor—it should be noted, continuously, that bin Laden attacked civilians and not uniformed military—was living comfortably in the posh neighborhood of Abbottabad; a neighborhood comprised almost entirely of current and retired senior Pakistani military officers.  Not to mention, his compound was nearly a mere half of a mile away from Pakistan’s premier military academy, Pakistan Military Academy. 

Bad Men Behaving Badly

For years Pakistan’s foundering political leadership has been telling the world that despite the widespread reports that Osama bin Laden was alive and well, living somewhere in Pakistan, that they did not know where bin Laden was or that he was not in Pakistan altogether.  Northwestern Pakistan has been a point of contention between US-led coalition leaders and Pakistani officials.  Taliban leadership has been based in northwest Pakistan, mainly in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), ever since being expelled from Kabul and Kandahar in November of 2001.  Furthermore, most of the Taliban insurgents seemed to be flowing back and forth from Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Former President Pervez Musharraf, the man who had negotiated the windfall diplomatic agreement with the Bush Administration, had originally promised to patrol the FATA and attack Taliban outposts.  But after years of inaction and rhetoric, Bush ordered an escalation of the CIA presence there, mainly using unmanned aerial vehicles armed with missiles that would strike insurgent camps with relative precision.  Pakistani officials continually decried these attacks and asserted that they had the situation under control.

Comedian Jon Stewart humorously berated and chided Pakistani leaders who had continuously lauded that they had no idea where bin Laden was. But Stewart most vehemently attacked Musharraf’s assertion that, after bin Laden’s death, it would have been an exercise in incompetence for intelligence and military officials to place bin Laden in such an auspicious area.  Which, therefore, left their defense to, at best, indifference or, at the worst, incompetence.  But neither defense is laudable.  Pakistan is now not only complacent in harboring Taliban insurgents and leadership, but, what’s more, their complacency has extended to America’s public enemy number one. 

Since late 2001 Pakistan has received extremely favorable treatment from the US after agreeing to become an ally in the War on Terror.  As the Obama administration was developing its strategy towards Afghanistan, experts continually informed the administration Pakistan is the greatest challenge to American success in Afghanistan.  AfPak was the term coined for the theater of conflict.  Pakistani officials immediately took issue with the term; they did not enjoy the implication that they were a part of the problem. 

While it is widely believed that Al Qaeda operatives, acting on order from bin Laden, assassinated Ahmed Shah Massoud on September 9^th, 2001, it is likely that Taliban played some role as well.  Furthermore, Pakistani leaders likely welcomed Massoud’s death.  Ahmed Shah Massoud, a heroic Mujahideen leader, was brilliant leader and military tactician who commanded the Northern Alliance—a collection of Uzbeks, Tajiks, and other ethnicities within Afghanistan who opposed the Pashtun Taliban and their control of Afghanistan.  The Northern Alliance was funded, primarily, by Russia, India, and Iran.  The Pakistani military likely viewed the Northern Alliance as a rogue threat from its Indian adversaries.  The Taliban continue to be the counterweight to what Pakistan perceives as an attempt by India spread regional influence and subversion. 

What’s less clear, however, is what kind of strategic relationship existed between Pakistan and Osama bin Laden.  Was bin Laden simply being warehoused and protected by the ISI and Pakistani military?  Bin Laden has had a long relationship with the reputed leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, which began when both men were fighting to expel the Soviets from Afghanistan.  Many of the Afghan Mujahideen were distrustful of influx of foreign fighters, in particular, the Arabs who treated them as lower life forms, but Omar protected and trusted bin Laden.  Was this relationship with the Taliban leader what motivated Pakistani officials to allow bin Laden to live just out of the reach of his American pursuers?  Or does Pakistan view Al Qaeda and its leadership as a strategic asset as well?

The way forward in regards to AfPak has always been murky, but this latest betrayal by America’s supposed ally just makes the outcome likely even more abysmal.   American diplomats know they can dialogue with Pakistani political leaders until they are blue in the face and in return get a myriad of tired excuses and feigned remorse.  But they know nothing they say is likely to change.  Pakistan is governed in the shadows by the military.  Ratcheting up diplomatic pressure has already been done, that was Richard Holbrooke’s trademark.  The military has fought marvelously in Afghanistan, but counterinsurgency is a terrible form of warfare.  Furthermore, a successful counterinsurgency is generally 10% military and 90% political.  The Obama administration has attempted to address the extremely decentralized governance by trying to build civil society at the tribal level, while still attempting to foster democratization at a federal level.  Afghanistan’s political leaders are generally corrupt and have no interest in democracy and tribal elders fear retribution from the Taliban if they appear to help coalition forces.  Politically, Obama doesn’t want to give up on what he himself called zenith of the War on Terror.  Concurrently, it seems the only viable option left to put pressure on Pakistan is to pull their largesse, which, nonetheless, would not be a popular move for Obama, politically.  With the recent events in Egypt, Libya, and Yemen, Obama has drawn criticism for failing to protect civilians from the repressive regimes they are demonstrating against; Pakistan’s regime is one of extreme repression and corruption—and one that condones and harbors terrorists.

In “Descent Into Chaos: The U.S. and the Disaster in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia” Ahmed Rashid writes that the West has failed to address the problems in Central Asia and that has led to what has come be in the region.  Rashid reveals an optimism that emerged after 9/11 in the minds of democratic-minded Muslims throughout the world that America and the West would address disaster that Central Asia had become under autocratic rules and repressive regimes.  There was thought that America and West would commit resources to help lift the region from the chaos.  But, Rashid argues, that the failure to engage in meaningful nation building just exacerbated the existing chaos and has led to the current situation.  However, nation building can easily be viewed as a military occupation, and, what’s more, both can equally dismal.  Further, nation building will not produce the desired results with Pakistan. 

Osama bin Laden’s death is a good thing.  It is a semblance of justice for the victims of his misguided jihad.  But the fact that he was killed in Pakistan is a step back in the War on Terror.

Foreign Policy Matters: Cowboy Down

As the United States and its coalition partners ramp up military actions in Libya, many Americans have responded, understandably, with consternation.  Further, coalition partners, like the United Kingdom, face similar domestic economic issues and do not understand see the value in interceding in the Libyan crisis.  The average cruise missile launched at Gadhafi’s military machine costs one million dollars.  Why are these expensive actions necessary?  Why did Obama seek out United Nations and Arab League approval before that of the US legislature?  What is the end-game?

While the punditry—on both sides--failed to reasonably examine and question presidential decisions in the military endeavors in Afghanistan and Iraq, they have been more than willing to latch on to the situation in Libya.  Judith Miller, former New York Times columnist and current columnist for Newsmax—a moderately-conservative publication, posed, basically, the same questions I have—the same questions she didn’t seem to think needed answering in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, or the same ones, in regards to Obama’s strategy towards Afghanistan, that got my Op-Ed pulled from the Greeley Tribune.  Questioning the strategy—moreover, asking for it—in Afghanistan was largely unpopular and uninteresting to many Americans.  Concurrently, Obama’s changes to the overarching strategy in Afghanistan failed to draw much political interest from the opposition and the punditry.  The situation in Libya is seemingly more appealing to the punditry; Obama is beleaguered, politically, and the republicans desire his constant capitulation.  As my dad so poignantly stated today, “They want him to check with daddy.” 

Judith Miller wondered why Obama was not as willing to intercede in other Arab/Muslim states that are uprising against their dictators.  While she did directly advise that Obama not adopt a uniform policy/strategy for dealing uprisings in the Middle East, she did hint at a grandiose strategy for the region.  She suggested supporting the toppling of each respective regime.  But, in doing so, Ms. Miller failed to recognize that the current instability is, somewhat, a negative reflection on US foreign policy; the US has supported regimes simply because of their benevolence towards Israel.  The United States needs to support popular movements against dictators, no matter where they may be or what the perceived consequences may be, all over the world. 

Obama is drawing much criticism—much of it is fair, but much of it’s imbecilic—over his administration’s foreign policy.  Many have expressed trepidation over what they view as weak, self-effacing foreign policy aimed repairing America’s reputation amongst the global community, a reputation that atrophied during the Bush administration.  George W. Bush’s foreign policy failures—ill advised and poorly managed military endeavors, reticence to condemn Israeli military action in 2006—resulted in the squandering of what may have been the pinnacle of America’s power within the international political economy. 

Many Americans, pundits, politicians, and voters, alike, have suggested that Obama’s overtly diplomatic approach to foreign policy will weaken America’s power on the global stage.  Many of these suggestions are, at best, somewhat misguided, or, worse, farcical.  Foreign policy is difficult to understand.  Most pundits rarely engage in discussing foreign policy, and, what’s more, if they do so, they’re discourse is usually superficial and self-serving.  Foreign policy wonks tend to be academics and intellectuals, and, therefore, most Americans may find it difficult to stay meaningfully informed regarding international affairs.  There is no intent, on my part, to be condescending.  How many people do you know who regularly pore over issues of Foreign Policy Magazine or The Journal of Foreign Affairs?  Having tutored students in the past, I can tell you that introduction level courses in international relations or foreign policy deter many undergraduates from those very subjects.  Unfortunately, however, the current tone of the GOP and many conservative pundits is one of anti-intellectualism.

Many influential and prolific foreign policy wonks have been conservatives.  Colin Powell had the transcendent ability to engage aptly in diplomacy and still engage the American public in rhetoric that made foreign policy more readily digestible for the average American.  But, like other scholars and seasoned diplomats, Powell, as Secretary of State, was forced to take a backseat to seasoned political infighters and overly hawkish individuals within the administration.    Bush had already made up his mind on invading Iraq and he was seemingly only interested in information from his administration that made the case for war.  While George H.W. Bush had instructed his Secretary of State, James A. Baker III, with building the largest coalition he could—this would prove a logistical nightmare for military planners, George W. Bush was not interested in building a tangible coalition.  Moreover, George H.W. Bush charged his staff at the State Department to gain UN approval, while George W. Bush thumbed has nose at the UN after they failed to return a favorable vote on the actions he wished to pursue. 

The criticisms that Obama is being too diplomatic and that his administration’s approach to foreign policy will weaken America’s stature are eerily similar to George W. Bush declaring that John Kerry would make America less safe.  Unbridled unilateralism—cowboy foreign policy—does fetch increased national security or a greater influence within the international political economy.  For example, while many regard Reagan as a foreign policy hawk who imposed his will on other states, his dovish qualities that allowed him to engage in discourse and negotiations with the Soviet Union that yielded foreign policy and national security gains.  On the other hand, when Reagan dubiously asserted that he would turn Latin America into a “beacon of freedom,”, it represented the derisory and ill-fated hawkish stances that, nearly three-decades later, still pervade American foreign policy.  Propping up regimes simply because they postulate Western sympathies, and, currently—especially amongst Arab states, assert benevolent positions towards Israel. 

Once again, Judith Miller delivers sterling points when discussing the situations in Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain.  But, ironically, she indicts Obama for playing politics, while admitting that the challenges in dealing with those other states would be logistically and politically stupefying.  Bashar al-Assad has shown the requisite benevolence towards Israel, and, therefore, disrupting his government would be politically perilous for Mr. Obama—the US-Israel lobby is one of the most powerful in Washington.  Any intervention—political or otherwise—in Yemen would be nearly as challenging as the AfPak situation.  Bahrain, a tiny state that has enjoyed largesse of oil wealth, is a state with over a million citizens that are ruled by a constitutional monarchy.  As Ms. Miller recognizes, American intervention in all of theses states would leave an enormous footprint in the region, and, therefore, specifically tailored responses to each situation is an imperative.   

Consulting, as well as seeking the approval of, the Arab League, from a foreign policy standpoint, seems to make sense.  The Arab League, like any regional alliance, has economic and political goals, but they can also provide insight into regional values and, to an extent, valuable intelligence.  The US should take advantage of the different diplomatic apparatuses—America still has the clout to do whatever it wants.  And, ultimately, it’s unilateralism that weakens American power, not diplomacy.

No matter what Glenn Beck claims to have “read,” it is laughable—or worse—to think that he can provide any meaningful insight into the situation in the Middle East.  Most states have a vast network of diplomats and statesmen across the globe who have spent years in their respective theaters getting to know the populations.  The US State Department is no exception.  Every presidential administration has an immense array of talented diplomats and statesmen at their disposal.  Also, the American president has to know that they have the power to act unilaterally, if so desired. 

As is the mission of this blog, the desired position is somewhere in the middle; American foreign policy is best conducted when policy makers are willing to engage in diplomacy, but still willing to represent American interests when diplomacy fails.  That being said, however, when receiving criticism from your peers, policy makers should never ignore diplomatic criticisms; rather, policy should evaluate criticisms as advice.  Anyone who thinks they fully understand themselves is a fool, and, correspondingly, anyone who believes they know more about another is an imbecile.  The truth is always somewhere in the middle.

Extreme Moderation

In an effort to gain more exposure, this blog has recently joined the realms of Facebook. Due to our occasional critique of the right, the blog has unsurprisingly been questioned as not being moderate, and rather leftist. I think it’s a clear sign of where American politics are today. I can speak for the writers of this blog in saying we are very much moderate, however, this is quite dependent on how one defines moderate. Yes, this blog has often attacked people on the right because of where we see the GOP currently stands. We see it as a far right pandering group churning out largely hypocritical rhetoric. As such, we feel it necessary to point out these hypocrisies in an effort to return the GOP to a political group who stands by actual conservative values.

This is not a football game; we’re not rooting for the Donkeys (not a reference to the beloved Broncos) or the Elephants (great football team name?), we are rooting for America. We have plenty of issues with the Dems for sure, but the strange thing is that in regards to substance, Democrats and Republicans are similar in many ways. In reference to spending; when the GOP continually preaches financial responsibility and subsequently the GOP committee winds up $23 million in debt, that’s hypocrisy. [1] Are democrats less guilty of spending? Of course not, but we take significant issue when members of the GOP are under the impression that they can absolve themselves from any blame towards the national debt simply by pointing figures and preaching principles they gave up long ago.

As an institution the Dems are not really better than the GOP, just different. They are inept and incapable of making any long lasting improvements through legislation or otherwise. There are certainly individuals among the Democratic Party for which the writers of this blog genuinely have distaste. But having issues with both sides alone does not make us moderate. Part of being moderate (again we’re getting into operational definitions) is not simply evenly attacking both the left and the right, but rather sticking to principles and never pandering to one side or the other due to misplaced loyalty. As previously stated, this is not a football game. If the GOP was principled, they would have openly criticized George W. Bush for his expansion of government and massive spending, just as they do with Obama.

Ultimately I (or again, we) believe that there needs to be new voices heard in the GOP. We might appear to lean left because we question the right so adamantly. This, however, is not because we are placating to the left; it is because we want the GOP to become a conservative party capable of leading the nation free of inexcusable blowhards. There cannot be civil discourse with the loudest people in the room getting all the attention.

In the future you will likely see articles of varying nature, maybe some geared toward grievances with the left, but that is not to say the writers do not stand by what is written to date.



[1] “RNC Is $23 Million in Debt, Says Chairman Reince Priebus” Lucy Madison, CBS News, February 2011