For several months now we've been in that awkward part of the presidential campaign where it's pretty clear that several prominent candidates will be running but yet no one wants to make that first move of declaring their candidacy. Leave it to the brash and bold junior senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, to shake things up by becoming the first major candidate to announce their candidacy in either party. From the early looks of things, it certainly seems like the race for the Republican nomination is going to end up very crowded. The ideologically diverse GOP electorate seems uninterested in a Jeb Bush coronation, and various factions have their own dream candidates: social conservatives are rooting for Huckabee and Santorum, hawks want Lindsey Graham, libertarian-leaning voters favor Rand Paul, and many of those nebulous "mainstream Republicans" think Rubio, Walker, or Jindal would be preferable to yet another Bush. Because the race is going to be so crowded and competitive, I think announcing early and grabbing a lot of press attention was a very wise thing to do on Ted Cruz's part. The challenge that Senator Cruz faces is explaining who he is and why he should be preferred above all those other guys. That's going to be a tough task, but Cruz might just be unique, savvy, and idiosyncratic enough to pull it off.
I thought Cruz did a fine job overall in his announcement speech at Liberty University. Judging from that speech, I think Cruz will run a different campaign than he was expected to run. For starters, he clearly wants to compete for the religious and social conservative vote -- choosing to announce at Liberty University, the Christian university founded by Jerry Falwell, is a good indication of that, as was his speech which emphasized the importance of faith in his life and his opposition to gay marriage and abortion. This was a shot against the bow of Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum...I wonder if Cruz is hoping that a social conservative tilt early in his campaign might dissuade one or the both of them from running. Choosing to kick off a presidential campaign at a institution called "Liberty" has interesting connotations as well. In particular, Cruz mentioned his opposition to government surveillance of US citizens in his announcement speech. As a senator, Cruz supported the USA Freedom Act that would have reformed the NSA and limited its ability to conduct certain kinds of mass surveillance. I would not call Cruz libertarian-leaning, really, when you consider his whole range of policies, but he has the potential to be a leader on this one issue. Apart from Rand Paul, I'm not so sure any other candidate from either party will even talk about mass surveillance during this campaign. Another notable thing about Cruz's Liberty University speech was his presentation of himself. He told his personal life story in a compelling way and it's actually a great American story: the son of a Cuban immigrant fleeing a dictator (Batista, not Castro) and a pioneering female computer programmer makes good, becomes a senator, and is now running for president.
Still, finding a niche isn't going to be easy for Ted Cruz. It's just very difficult to bridge the hostile, competing camps that currently occupy the Republican Party. For instance, the good will Cruz might generate among the liberty wing of the party by his support for reforming the NSA can easily be offset by his opposition to gay marriage and abortion and support for stricter immigration policies. On the other hand, Cruz's mix of policies could enable him to thrive as a second choice candidate. By that I mean he might not be the ideal candidate preferred by any particular wing, but he could be the candidate a lot of voters from different wings might settle for. For instance, voters who might prefer Rand Paul when it comes to civil liberties but are more hawkish than the Kentucky senator could find themselves attracted to Candidate Cruz because his opposition to the surveillance state is combined with support for a robust foreign policy. His greatest strength of all is probably his purity and sheer bloody-mindedness: he has only been a senator for a couple of years and his time in office has been marked by steadfast and total opposition to the policies endorsed by President Obama. For someone with limited political experience, he's been remarkably adept at grabbing headlines both with legislation and theatrics; he's shown he is quite willing to battle Obamacare, Common Core, and amnesty until the end of time, largely regardless of consequences. He scares some because of that unwillingness to compromise -- it's probably safe to say that his administration would be no more successful at achieving bipartisan understanding than the less firebrand Obama. Thus, if there is a genuine hunger for political compromise in the country, Cruz's candidacy is doomed for sure, but there is also something appealing about knowing who a candidate is and where he or she stands.
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Monday, January 19, 2015
At What Price Scalise?
Congressman Steve Scalise of Lousiana has recently gotten himself into the news for the wrong reasons. It has been revealed that in 2002 the then state legislator addressed a racist group known as the European-American Unity and Rights Organization closely associated with former head of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan David Duke. Duke was probably one of the last politicians to gain national prominence running openly and unabashedly as a racist, but his political career consists essentially of one loss after another: quixotic runs for president (both as a Democrat and as a Republican), multiple bids for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, and a try for Louisiana governor that culminated in his loss to the notoriously corrupt Edwin Edwards. His one taste of victory occurred in 1989 when he was elected to the Louisiana House of Representatives. That was it for Duke, yet it was enough to give him a strangely enduring place in American politics that, thanks to Steve Scalise, seems set to continue well into the indefinite future.
What Scalise said that day over a decade ago was probably not racist or offensive. Judging by the way the political winds are blowing, Scalise's position in the House is probably secure. He has the backing of Speaker Boehner, and his friends of all races are largely sticking by him and vouching for his character. He has apologized for addressing the group and denied sharing its views. The case against him at this point is purely guilt by association and as with any political scandal the looming question is how perfect voters have the right to expect their politicians to be. Everyone has skeletons in their closet, the argument goes. "The spotlight shines so bright that no one would meet muster, and such close scrutiny just dissuades good people from running." I've heard it all a thousand times, and I'm not entirely unsympathetic to that view. Still, I find myself wondering sometimes whether our standards as voters aren't too low. Think about it: at any given point in time, there is one president, one hundred senators, and four hundred and thirty five representatives. We could similarly break the numbers down for each state, though New Hampshire's four hundred member House of Representatives must probably inevitably include a few clunkers given the state's small population. My point is there aren't that many people in power at the highest echelon. Can't we elect the ones who don't address racist organizations, don't accept bribes, and don't cheat on their spouses? They needn't be perfect, just a little more circumspect, moral (if not moralistic), and self-controlled than the average schlub.
The real pity for the Republican Party is that Steve Scalise's political survival bolsters its naysayers and undermines its own efforts to reach out to minorities. I've long been struck at how the Republican Party is frequently portrayed as being unabashedly and extremely racist by liberal bloggers. The more nuanced argument to this effect is that Republican policies hurt minorities and benefit whites even if the average Republican politician or voter isn't necessarily racist. That, of course, is subject to debate, but it is a serious argument one could quite thoughtfully make. The less nuanced argument is that Republicans are, in fact, largely racist and deliberately pursue policies to further a particular race agenda. This one I have a much harder time following. Racial rhetoric is simply not a regular feature of mainstream American politics today. There is, for instance, no longer a publicly pro-segregation or anti-integration wing of either party. The Republican Party remains mainly white, but in recent years many minority Republicans have been elected to high office: Tim Scott, Bobby Jindal, Raul Labrador, and Marco Rubio are a few names that immediately spring to mind. As far as I can tell, these politicians have largely been embraced by their party; Jindal and Rubio remain in the mix as potential presidential candidates. Rubio and Rand Paul are among the Republicans who have sought to appeal to minority voters directly, most notably on the issues of immigration reform and drug laws respectively. Thus, it seems to me that the Democratic Party is vulnerable to a degree because the grassroots rhetoric of some liberal activists about racist Republicans, at least at its most vitriolic and hysterical, often doesn't seem to remotely match reality. Undoubtedly, there are minority voters whose political views are actually closer to the Republican Party that nonetheless continue to vote for Democratic candidates simply because they feel like they can't trust Republicans. Those are voters that Republicans could win, but every time something happens like the Steve Scalise debacle it strengthens the perception that open racism remains a norm in the modern Republican Party. That's the true price that must be paid for Steve Scalise. Representative Scalise might be a good person and an excellent politician, but he has damaged his party.
In closing, let me play devil's advocate for just a moment. Could Scalise have possibly framed his speech in a POSITIVE light? It is an expectation that an elected official will, while holding on to his or her own views, also strive to represent all members of his or her constituency. Taking that idea to its logical conclusion, we must admit that Scalise has a duty to represent racists in addition to everyone else in his district. In that context, addressing a racist group might be forgivable, one of many onerous duties a politician might perform. I can't quite go along with this argument, though. Unless one were to spend much of one's speech condemning the very group one is addressing, simply speaking in front of a group affords it legitimacy and respect. It would raise understandable fears that such a politician might secretly share a few, or some, or many, or all those views espoused by the group even if he or she was not willing to openly admit it. While a politician has a duty to serve his or her racist constituents just as any other constituent should be served, he or she certainly does not have any duty to promote or respect hateful views. Representative Scalise has done well to distance himself from the European-American Unity and Rights Organization, but he should never have allowed himself to get so close to it to begin with.
What Scalise said that day over a decade ago was probably not racist or offensive. Judging by the way the political winds are blowing, Scalise's position in the House is probably secure. He has the backing of Speaker Boehner, and his friends of all races are largely sticking by him and vouching for his character. He has apologized for addressing the group and denied sharing its views. The case against him at this point is purely guilt by association and as with any political scandal the looming question is how perfect voters have the right to expect their politicians to be. Everyone has skeletons in their closet, the argument goes. "The spotlight shines so bright that no one would meet muster, and such close scrutiny just dissuades good people from running." I've heard it all a thousand times, and I'm not entirely unsympathetic to that view. Still, I find myself wondering sometimes whether our standards as voters aren't too low. Think about it: at any given point in time, there is one president, one hundred senators, and four hundred and thirty five representatives. We could similarly break the numbers down for each state, though New Hampshire's four hundred member House of Representatives must probably inevitably include a few clunkers given the state's small population. My point is there aren't that many people in power at the highest echelon. Can't we elect the ones who don't address racist organizations, don't accept bribes, and don't cheat on their spouses? They needn't be perfect, just a little more circumspect, moral (if not moralistic), and self-controlled than the average schlub.
The real pity for the Republican Party is that Steve Scalise's political survival bolsters its naysayers and undermines its own efforts to reach out to minorities. I've long been struck at how the Republican Party is frequently portrayed as being unabashedly and extremely racist by liberal bloggers. The more nuanced argument to this effect is that Republican policies hurt minorities and benefit whites even if the average Republican politician or voter isn't necessarily racist. That, of course, is subject to debate, but it is a serious argument one could quite thoughtfully make. The less nuanced argument is that Republicans are, in fact, largely racist and deliberately pursue policies to further a particular race agenda. This one I have a much harder time following. Racial rhetoric is simply not a regular feature of mainstream American politics today. There is, for instance, no longer a publicly pro-segregation or anti-integration wing of either party. The Republican Party remains mainly white, but in recent years many minority Republicans have been elected to high office: Tim Scott, Bobby Jindal, Raul Labrador, and Marco Rubio are a few names that immediately spring to mind. As far as I can tell, these politicians have largely been embraced by their party; Jindal and Rubio remain in the mix as potential presidential candidates. Rubio and Rand Paul are among the Republicans who have sought to appeal to minority voters directly, most notably on the issues of immigration reform and drug laws respectively. Thus, it seems to me that the Democratic Party is vulnerable to a degree because the grassroots rhetoric of some liberal activists about racist Republicans, at least at its most vitriolic and hysterical, often doesn't seem to remotely match reality. Undoubtedly, there are minority voters whose political views are actually closer to the Republican Party that nonetheless continue to vote for Democratic candidates simply because they feel like they can't trust Republicans. Those are voters that Republicans could win, but every time something happens like the Steve Scalise debacle it strengthens the perception that open racism remains a norm in the modern Republican Party. That's the true price that must be paid for Steve Scalise. Representative Scalise might be a good person and an excellent politician, but he has damaged his party.
In closing, let me play devil's advocate for just a moment. Could Scalise have possibly framed his speech in a POSITIVE light? It is an expectation that an elected official will, while holding on to his or her own views, also strive to represent all members of his or her constituency. Taking that idea to its logical conclusion, we must admit that Scalise has a duty to represent racists in addition to everyone else in his district. In that context, addressing a racist group might be forgivable, one of many onerous duties a politician might perform. I can't quite go along with this argument, though. Unless one were to spend much of one's speech condemning the very group one is addressing, simply speaking in front of a group affords it legitimacy and respect. It would raise understandable fears that such a politician might secretly share a few, or some, or many, or all those views espoused by the group even if he or she was not willing to openly admit it. While a politician has a duty to serve his or her racist constituents just as any other constituent should be served, he or she certainly does not have any duty to promote or respect hateful views. Representative Scalise has done well to distance himself from the European-American Unity and Rights Organization, but he should never have allowed himself to get so close to it to begin with.
Saturday, January 17, 2015
The Long Embargo
The United States' recent restoration of full diplomatic relations with Cuba marked the end of five decades of enmity. Though the United States' long embargo against the Caribbean nation has not been lifted just yet, many political commentators seem to expect it will be soon despite continued opposition from some quarters. For better or for worse, it is an embargo that has lasted throughout my entire lifetime, and to a certain extent it has dominated the way I think about Cuba as a nation. The low points of the US-Cuba relationship occurred well before I was born, and as such I can't say as an American that I've ever really considered Cuba to be particularly threatening or dangerous. I must confess that when I think of Cuba thoughts of universal health care, mass literacy,
classic cars, and cigars come to my mind just as easily as recollections of political prisoners and harsh repression. A tyrannical and intolerant regime it has, to be sure...but there are plenty of those on our unfriendly green planet. All in all, I've generally tended to think the embargo was hypocritical given that other countries which the US trades freely with (China being one obvious example) aren't exactly known for their respect for human rights either. With detainee torture and mass surveillance being high profile aspects of American national policy in recent years, a cynical commentator might well wonder whether the old enemies don't actually have more in common than they have differences. Still, if relations with Cuba are to be completely reset, it begs the question, "What was the point of it all?" Was it all a waste? Was nothing accomplished?
Certainly, Cuba remains a Communist country that routinely imprisons critics of the government, notwithstanding the 53 political prisoners it recently agreed to release as part of its negotiations with the US. It is no longer any sort of realistic military threat to the US, but then again it never really was in and of itself -- like so many other countries during the Cold War, Cuba was just another theater in the slow burning conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. Economic hard times and perhaps waning political idealism have made Cuba more likely to export doctors than violent revolution. Although there is no question that Cuba has changed in recent years, having taken small steps to liberalize the economy and permitting (uneasily and inconsistently) Yoani Sanchez to continue to blog, my personal opinion is that Cuba has changed less than the world around it has changed. Cuba is not a threat today primarily because the Soviet Union is no longer a threat. Cuba is no longer an exporter of revolution primarily because it can no longer afford to be. The epiphany desired by the US government for so many years has never occurred; Cuba has not really changed its ideology or its values over the years. Thus, the restoration of relations and possible eventual lifting of embargo is, in my view, more a manifestation of a new American tolerance than an indication of any sudden Cuban surrender.
The embargo's fatal flaw is that it lasted too long. The Castros' regime never collapsed or capitulated, but the embargo continued on and on, becoming more a permanent feature of American-Cuban relations than a potential bargaining chip. It became institutionalized and monumentalized, a part of the scenery rather than an obstacle to be cleared away. The greatest pity is that its ultimate legacy may be judged to be nothing more than unnecessary human suffering. The effectiveness of economic sanctions in general is hotly debated, and I don't believe there are any universally acknowledged success stories. Still, I think they must have their place because the one truly effective way a nation can express its displeasure with another nation is too horrible. The other alternative is to do nothing and to just accept whatever happens in the world, but that is a policy that only rewards the violent and the rapacious. That said, embargoes are probably too extreme and unwieldy a tool in most instances. The piecemeal sanctions against Russia have seemingly had a large impact on the Russian economy in a short amount of time, but they could be easily reversed if Russia were willing to rethink its Ukrainian adventurism (alas, I'm not holding my breath). Tariffs and quotas are primarily associated with economic protectionism, but I think they can also be interesting political tools to help sort out more minor disputes -- by using them, a baseline for trade can be established and commercial links between countries maintained, but there will always be present an underlying realization that the trade between the two countries could be increased, perhaps greatly so, if only political understanding could be achieved. As I see it, economic sanctions can only encourage political change -- they, unlike wars or coups or assassinations, cannot directly effect change. As such, I suspect their performance is always going to be somewhat disappointing.
Certainly, Cuba remains a Communist country that routinely imprisons critics of the government, notwithstanding the 53 political prisoners it recently agreed to release as part of its negotiations with the US. It is no longer any sort of realistic military threat to the US, but then again it never really was in and of itself -- like so many other countries during the Cold War, Cuba was just another theater in the slow burning conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. Economic hard times and perhaps waning political idealism have made Cuba more likely to export doctors than violent revolution. Although there is no question that Cuba has changed in recent years, having taken small steps to liberalize the economy and permitting (uneasily and inconsistently) Yoani Sanchez to continue to blog, my personal opinion is that Cuba has changed less than the world around it has changed. Cuba is not a threat today primarily because the Soviet Union is no longer a threat. Cuba is no longer an exporter of revolution primarily because it can no longer afford to be. The epiphany desired by the US government for so many years has never occurred; Cuba has not really changed its ideology or its values over the years. Thus, the restoration of relations and possible eventual lifting of embargo is, in my view, more a manifestation of a new American tolerance than an indication of any sudden Cuban surrender.
The embargo's fatal flaw is that it lasted too long. The Castros' regime never collapsed or capitulated, but the embargo continued on and on, becoming more a permanent feature of American-Cuban relations than a potential bargaining chip. It became institutionalized and monumentalized, a part of the scenery rather than an obstacle to be cleared away. The greatest pity is that its ultimate legacy may be judged to be nothing more than unnecessary human suffering. The effectiveness of economic sanctions in general is hotly debated, and I don't believe there are any universally acknowledged success stories. Still, I think they must have their place because the one truly effective way a nation can express its displeasure with another nation is too horrible. The other alternative is to do nothing and to just accept whatever happens in the world, but that is a policy that only rewards the violent and the rapacious. That said, embargoes are probably too extreme and unwieldy a tool in most instances. The piecemeal sanctions against Russia have seemingly had a large impact on the Russian economy in a short amount of time, but they could be easily reversed if Russia were willing to rethink its Ukrainian adventurism (alas, I'm not holding my breath). Tariffs and quotas are primarily associated with economic protectionism, but I think they can also be interesting political tools to help sort out more minor disputes -- by using them, a baseline for trade can be established and commercial links between countries maintained, but there will always be present an underlying realization that the trade between the two countries could be increased, perhaps greatly so, if only political understanding could be achieved. As I see it, economic sanctions can only encourage political change -- they, unlike wars or coups or assassinations, cannot directly effect change. As such, I suspect their performance is always going to be somewhat disappointing.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
The Inevitability of Hillary
The 2016 US presidential campaign has begun -- we just don't realize it yet. The candidacy announcements, campaign stops, and debates are still a ways in the future, but the campaign is nonetheless in a crucial phase as we speak because candidates are involved in the relatively invisible process of deciding whether or not they stand a reasonable chance of winning the highest office in the land. For Democratic contenders, this decision is going to be a particularly difficult one to make due to the looming presence of Hillary Clinton. The former first lady, senator, and secretary of state is not an announced candidate. Not unlike many other former presidential candidates, Mrs. Clinton has sought to discourage speculation as to any possible candidacy and dampen expectations. Nonetheless, she is widely expected to seek the Democratic nomination. Given her early poll numbers, name recognition, and distinguished resume, she has all the markings of a front-runner. This puts other potential Democratic candidates in a difficult position. Is it worth challenging such a strong candidate? Is it counterproductive to the party to expose internal divisions when a juggernaut like Hillary could just romp to an easy election win?
Would-be candidates face a similar quandary whenever an incumbent president is seeking reelection. It is widely considered to be bad form to primary an incumbent and, judging purely from past electoral results, there is good reason for partisans to frown on such challenges. After all, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H. W. Bush all proceeded to lose in general elections after they'd been forced to fight for the nominations of their party against determined opposition. However, in my view, these candidates didn't really lose because they were challenged -- they were challenged (and ended up losing in the general election) due to their perceived vulnerabilities. That's really what the primary season does: it exposes weaknesses as well as strengths. While we're talking about history, I'd like to mention Al Gore and his candidacy in 2000. He was also an anointed candidate; he had the name recognition and the resume, and his position of vice president offered him the ideal launching pad for the presidency. He was challenged, weakly, for the Democratic nomination by Bill Bradley as other prominent Democrats refrained from throwing their hats in the ring. Gore made short work of his challenger but proceeded to lose the general election (even if the end result is still disputed by many, there is no question that the election was extremely close). Would the Democratic Party really have been hurt if other candidates had emerged to challenge for the nomination? Even if the end result for the nomination did not change, might Gore have emerged stronger if he'd had to fight harder? I certainly think it's possible. Denying Mrs. Clinton her "baptism by fire" in the primaries may not prepare her very well for the rigors of the general election.
When it comes to Hillary Clinton's possible nomination, I think the Democratic Party should also be wary of an ideology I like to call "Yourturnism." Hillary is the favorite of Yourturnists for a few reasons. First, she's the most prominent Democrat likely to run in 2016 -- thus, it's seemingly "her turn" to win. She's next in the batting order. Secondly, Secretary of State Clinton was the losing Democrat in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries. Given that there is a degree of disappointment with President Obama's performance as president in some quarters, some think Clinton should have won that nomination back in 2008 and think it's her turn now to run again and fix an error of history by winning. Thirdly, Hillary Clinton would be the first female American president were she to win the election, a momentous event in the history of the United States, and an impressive follow-up to the election of the first African American president. The trouble with Yourturnism is that it ignores the fickleness of politics. The zeitgeist candidate is not the candidate who looks the best on paper -- it's the candidate who will connect with the public and gets the result at that moment in time. Barack Obama's willingness to challenge the more established Hillary Clinton in 2008 set off a chain of events that led to Obama winning two presidential elections as a Democrat. Assuming that Senator Clinton would have achieved the same end result is an unreasonable leap of faith. Martha Coakley, though a prominent Democratic politician in a Democratic state, still could not convince the voters to give her her turn as Massachusetts senator rather than elect the unlikely Republican Scott Brown. Mitt Romney's second chance at the presidency was, ultimately, no more successful than his first. Hillary Clinton's prominence and resume won't win her an election on their own. Perhaps even more insidiously, a successful unchallenged Clinton nomination could lead to more Yourturnist candidates in the future. Imagine a string of uninspired candidates, convinced that it is their time to be handed the presidency because of their position in their party, their resumes, or their demographic, dominating spiritless nomination contests and proceeding to sink like a bag of rocks in the general election. That doesn't sound so bad...for Republicans! Ultimately, I think Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic party, and the electorate as a whole would be best-served by a true primary season with multiple top-tier contenders, especially considering we're almost certain to have an interesting contest on the Republican side of things.
Would-be candidates face a similar quandary whenever an incumbent president is seeking reelection. It is widely considered to be bad form to primary an incumbent and, judging purely from past electoral results, there is good reason for partisans to frown on such challenges. After all, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H. W. Bush all proceeded to lose in general elections after they'd been forced to fight for the nominations of their party against determined opposition. However, in my view, these candidates didn't really lose because they were challenged -- they were challenged (and ended up losing in the general election) due to their perceived vulnerabilities. That's really what the primary season does: it exposes weaknesses as well as strengths. While we're talking about history, I'd like to mention Al Gore and his candidacy in 2000. He was also an anointed candidate; he had the name recognition and the resume, and his position of vice president offered him the ideal launching pad for the presidency. He was challenged, weakly, for the Democratic nomination by Bill Bradley as other prominent Democrats refrained from throwing their hats in the ring. Gore made short work of his challenger but proceeded to lose the general election (even if the end result is still disputed by many, there is no question that the election was extremely close). Would the Democratic Party really have been hurt if other candidates had emerged to challenge for the nomination? Even if the end result for the nomination did not change, might Gore have emerged stronger if he'd had to fight harder? I certainly think it's possible. Denying Mrs. Clinton her "baptism by fire" in the primaries may not prepare her very well for the rigors of the general election.
When it comes to Hillary Clinton's possible nomination, I think the Democratic Party should also be wary of an ideology I like to call "Yourturnism." Hillary is the favorite of Yourturnists for a few reasons. First, she's the most prominent Democrat likely to run in 2016 -- thus, it's seemingly "her turn" to win. She's next in the batting order. Secondly, Secretary of State Clinton was the losing Democrat in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries. Given that there is a degree of disappointment with President Obama's performance as president in some quarters, some think Clinton should have won that nomination back in 2008 and think it's her turn now to run again and fix an error of history by winning. Thirdly, Hillary Clinton would be the first female American president were she to win the election, a momentous event in the history of the United States, and an impressive follow-up to the election of the first African American president. The trouble with Yourturnism is that it ignores the fickleness of politics. The zeitgeist candidate is not the candidate who looks the best on paper -- it's the candidate who will connect with the public and gets the result at that moment in time. Barack Obama's willingness to challenge the more established Hillary Clinton in 2008 set off a chain of events that led to Obama winning two presidential elections as a Democrat. Assuming that Senator Clinton would have achieved the same end result is an unreasonable leap of faith. Martha Coakley, though a prominent Democratic politician in a Democratic state, still could not convince the voters to give her her turn as Massachusetts senator rather than elect the unlikely Republican Scott Brown. Mitt Romney's second chance at the presidency was, ultimately, no more successful than his first. Hillary Clinton's prominence and resume won't win her an election on their own. Perhaps even more insidiously, a successful unchallenged Clinton nomination could lead to more Yourturnist candidates in the future. Imagine a string of uninspired candidates, convinced that it is their time to be handed the presidency because of their position in their party, their resumes, or their demographic, dominating spiritless nomination contests and proceeding to sink like a bag of rocks in the general election. That doesn't sound so bad...for Republicans! Ultimately, I think Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic party, and the electorate as a whole would be best-served by a true primary season with multiple top-tier contenders, especially considering we're almost certain to have an interesting contest on the Republican side of things.
Monday, March 3, 2014
Preventing Putin
There is an "Amerocentric" view of foreign policy that inhabits American political thinking and comes in two different strains. The liberal strain looks on the problems of the world and connects them to harmful acts past and present committed by America; for instance, Iran's government is repressive today because the United States government played a role in overthrowing Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. This attitude can be summarized simply as, "Other countries do bad things because America has done and continues to do bad things." The conservative strain looks on the problems of the world and connects them to American inaction and hesitancy; for instance, Kim Jong-un is a threat to the world because the US has not been forceful enough with North Korea. This attitude can be summarized simply as, "Other countries do bad things because America hasn't acted with sufficient strength to make them behave." What connects the two strains is the position of the United States: both viewpoints assume that anything that happens anywhere in the world has something to do with America. I don't think that's REALLY true -- other countries are independent actors who have their own unique objectives and fears. While they are certainly affected by America given the political and military strength of the United States and the connected nature of the global economy, American decision making is also affected by the actions and attitudes of other countries. Still, there is a seductive quality about Amerocentrism; it suggests that the world could be different and could be better than it is today if only the United States had acted differently. To a limited extent, I think that really is true. With that in mind, I thought it would be interesting to consider if the United States through its foreign policy really could have prevented the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
What got me thinking along these lines was an article I read which quoted Senator Corker as essentially blaming President Obama for the Crimean crisis because Obama had backed down from attacking Syria after evidence emerged of Bashar al-Assad's forces having used chemical weapons against Syrian rebels. Russian president Vladimir Putin of course ended up brokering a deal in which Syria agreed to turn over its chemical weapons for destruction to prevent the US from directly entering the war. Seemingly, this worked out well for everyone apart from the Syrians rebels: the United States achieved its goal of preventing chemical weapons from being used in the Syrian conflict while avoiding having to commit forces to yet another conflict in the Middle East, Syria avoided a direct US military intervention, and Russia played the unusual role of peacemaker and scored diplomatic points. According to Corker, however, this willingness to shy away from military force even after verbal threats had been made to dissuade Assad from using chemical weapons made Obama seem weak in Putin's eyes, emboldening Putin to attack Ukraine with no fears of an effective response. Of course, all this begs the question as to whether or not Putin would have invaded Ukraine had the US been more forceful in Syria. Personally, I don't think it would have made a difference. Intervening in a small country like Syria is far less risky than fighting any type of war against a major power. Any leader would have been extremely reluctant to go to war with Russia over Ukraine simply because Russia has a large and powerful military, not to mention nuclear weapons. Putin is well aware of this, and his calculations probably would not have changed even if the US had attacked Syria. Additionally, Putin has now wasted all of the diplomatic capital he earned by brokering the Syrian deal -- he and Russia will simply be viewed as expansionists for decades to come, particularly by Russia's direct neighbors. I doubt the United States expected Russia to be so willing to injure its position on the world stage so quickly after a triumph; indeed, I suspect the Obama administration felt that a Russian diplomatic "win" would if anything encourage Russia towards a more active but peaceable diplomatic role in the world. While that view proved not be correct, I think it COULD have been had Russia had different leadership...it was not inherently unreasonable. Another point I would add is that President Obama WAS willing to intervene, albeit a little gingerly, in Libya, so Russia could hardly have assumed there was a 0% chance of an American military response because Obama was so adamantly opposed to entering new conflicts. Syria or no Syria, Putin knew the likelihood of American military involvement was low because of Russian military strength.
President Obama could also have been accused of emboldening Moscow by backing away from the proposed missile defense shield President Bush had agreed to help build in Poland and the Czech Republic. Ostensibly, the whole thing was about protecting Europe from Iranian missiles, but it doesn't take a hardened realist to see that it could also be used to protect Europe against Russian missiles if needed as well. Obama backed away from the deal in no small part due to continued Russian objections. Seemingly, the US gambled that a more conciliatory attitude towards Russia would build trust and help relations. It's hard to argue that now. Although it would be naive to not recognize that defensive weapons can also be useful in an offensive war, the US never had any compelling reason to make it any easier for Russia to strike Europe militarily. Given that it is now clear that Russia is on an expansionistic course, I consider this to be one of President Obama's largest foreign policy blunders. However, for now Russia has just attacked Ukraine, and it has done so by pouring in troops rather than missiles. Missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic would not have protected Ukraine per se, though had Obama not wavered I think Russia might have been more reluctant to invade.
So, if we decide not to blame Obama for this mess, perhaps we can blame President Bush. After all, he was president when Russia fought a war with Georgia; there was no US military intervention in that conflict, either. Undoubtedly, Russia's successful war with Georgia enhanced its military morale and played a role in Russia's current willingness to commit its forces in Ukraine. Could, then, the Ukraine crisis have been prevented by a forceful response to the attack on Georgia? Here we have a situation where there is no good scenario. The world is reluctant to engage Russia militarily now because Russia is a great (and a nuclear) power. The world was equally reluctant to engage Russia in 2008 because Russia was a great (and a nuclear) power then too. Fighting World War III in 2008 would, if successful, have indeed prevented Russia from invading another country in 2014 in all probability, but at tremendous cost. Short of war, could Russia have been so punished that it would not invade Ukraine? That's a more interesting question and I don't know the answer to it. Perhaps President Bush and the rest of the world did let Putin get off too lightly. The Georgian situation was very different, though, in that the Georgian military did make a move to recapture South Ossetia, a separatist region backed by Russia. It's impossible to find a single virtuous actor in the whole conflict. The Ossetians and Abkhaz have treated Georgians abominably in the breakway areas, the Georgians have failed to respect the Abkhaz and the Ossetians' rights to self-determination, and the Russians have played the whole situation to their own advantage time and time again. From what I've read, I think there is something to the notion that Russia goaded Georgia into an attack through repeated provocations and pretty much planned the whole thing exactly as it unfolded. Be that as it may, Russia had some justification for going to war -- Georgia may have been manipulated, but it still acted foolishly and aggressively. Under the circumstances, it's not surprising Russia was not more isolated as a result of its military action in Georgia.
There's one other reason to tweak Bush: the Iraq war. What does that have to do with Russia or Ukraine? Perhaps more than one would expect. What really stands out to me as being unusual is the complete lack of casus belli in the Ukraine conflict. In retrospect, we can see the war in Iraq was also waged without a real casus belli -- the promised weapons of mass destruction the Bush administration warned the world about never materialized in Iraq. Thus, there doesn't seem to have been any immediate reason to strike at Iraq when we did. Admittedly, the concept of casus belli exists in our minds -- Saddam Hussein's past invasions and massacres were perhaps in and of themselves reasons for deposing him, and it makes no sense to have a "statute of limitations" for mass murder -- but the United States and its allies did not claim to be attacking Iraq because of Hussein's past misdeeds. A clear and present danger was claimed...falsely. For domestic consumption, Russia is currently claiming that it needs to "defend" Russians (really Russian-speaking Ukrainians) in Crimea and perhaps in eastern Ukraine as well. The problem is there are no dead Russians in the streets of Sevastopol, no Russians being rounded up into camps, and in general no signs of persecution or abuse of Russians. Crimea is already autonomous, and Russian speakers are in fact the majority in Crimea and much of eastern Ukraine rather than a persecuted minority. What needs to be defended then? Russia has pointed to legislative efforts to make Ukrainian the only official language of the country. The trouble is this effort failed -- nutty legislation gets proposed and then rejected all over the world all the time. Russia has also claimed that fascists have taken over Ukraine and evidently want to hurt the inherently non-Fascistic Russian residents of Ukraine. This plays well with how Russians view Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian nationalist who opposed the Soviets and showed a willingness to work with the Nazis against their common enemy for a time. Bandera, though, was really just a nationalist -- he was as uninterested in being ruled by the Nazis as he was in being ruled by the Soviets, and he ended up a prisoner in Germany. To me, Bandera is reminiscent of Dabrowski and the other Poles who fought for Napoleon in the hopes that it would lead to an independent Poland as well as Aung San who was willing to collaborate with the Japanese to throw the British out of Burma (like Bandera, Aung San's nationalism made him ultimately turn against his former sponsors). In all these cases, nationalists were willing to collaborate with evil to further their nationalistic aims. That's certainly not praiseworthy, but the notion of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" remains a cornerstone of modern foreign relations so it's hardly surprising behavior. In truth, the new government in Ukraine is diverse and I can't see how it could be called fascist in any serious sense. There is much concern over the Ukrainian nationalist party Svoboda having fascist leanings, but it doesn't control the government. I can remember well how much alarm the Russian "ultra-nationalist" Vladimir Zhirinovsky used to inspire in the United States. Despite playing a prominent role in Russian politics for many years, neither he nor his party have ever taken over the country. There's no reason to assume Svoboda will ever be able to take control over Ukraine -- at any rate, they certainly aren't running the country now. Russia has no reasonable pretext for acting as it has in Ukraine. In a sense, the US did establish a precedence for this in Iraq, and those countries that did oppose the Iraq invasion did so rather ineffectively, making it seem that major powers can get away with invading smaller countries for any reason they want. Putin no doubt expects the world's response to his invasion to be equally as weak and ineffective.
In conclusion, I doubt that the United States could have prevented Russia from invading Ukraine by doing any ONE thing. However, I think the invasion might not have happened had the US not invaded Iraq but had punished Russia more severely for its actions in Georgia, had stayed the course with regards to missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic, and had ignored Russian overtures in Syria (I would suggest that perhaps the US could have brokered its own deal with Syria without Russian involvement as an alternative to going to war). It's this chain of events -- the Iraq War making it seem that great powers can get away with anything combined with American weakness in response to Russian expressions of strength -- that has helped get us where we are today. Unlike the Amerocentric thinkers, however, I don't think the story ends there. Other countries have been too complacent as well...Putin's war machine is partly funded from the coffers of a fossil fuel hungry Europe after all. And perhaps there's no greater culprit overall than the failure of the international system that I mentioned in my previous post. Great powers simply can get away with too much in the current geopolitical environment. That's dangerous and has a tendency to lead to more and more war. If Putin isn't stopped in Ukraine, I wonder where he will be stopped...and who else will be tempted to follow in his footsteps.
What got me thinking along these lines was an article I read which quoted Senator Corker as essentially blaming President Obama for the Crimean crisis because Obama had backed down from attacking Syria after evidence emerged of Bashar al-Assad's forces having used chemical weapons against Syrian rebels. Russian president Vladimir Putin of course ended up brokering a deal in which Syria agreed to turn over its chemical weapons for destruction to prevent the US from directly entering the war. Seemingly, this worked out well for everyone apart from the Syrians rebels: the United States achieved its goal of preventing chemical weapons from being used in the Syrian conflict while avoiding having to commit forces to yet another conflict in the Middle East, Syria avoided a direct US military intervention, and Russia played the unusual role of peacemaker and scored diplomatic points. According to Corker, however, this willingness to shy away from military force even after verbal threats had been made to dissuade Assad from using chemical weapons made Obama seem weak in Putin's eyes, emboldening Putin to attack Ukraine with no fears of an effective response. Of course, all this begs the question as to whether or not Putin would have invaded Ukraine had the US been more forceful in Syria. Personally, I don't think it would have made a difference. Intervening in a small country like Syria is far less risky than fighting any type of war against a major power. Any leader would have been extremely reluctant to go to war with Russia over Ukraine simply because Russia has a large and powerful military, not to mention nuclear weapons. Putin is well aware of this, and his calculations probably would not have changed even if the US had attacked Syria. Additionally, Putin has now wasted all of the diplomatic capital he earned by brokering the Syrian deal -- he and Russia will simply be viewed as expansionists for decades to come, particularly by Russia's direct neighbors. I doubt the United States expected Russia to be so willing to injure its position on the world stage so quickly after a triumph; indeed, I suspect the Obama administration felt that a Russian diplomatic "win" would if anything encourage Russia towards a more active but peaceable diplomatic role in the world. While that view proved not be correct, I think it COULD have been had Russia had different leadership...it was not inherently unreasonable. Another point I would add is that President Obama WAS willing to intervene, albeit a little gingerly, in Libya, so Russia could hardly have assumed there was a 0% chance of an American military response because Obama was so adamantly opposed to entering new conflicts. Syria or no Syria, Putin knew the likelihood of American military involvement was low because of Russian military strength.
President Obama could also have been accused of emboldening Moscow by backing away from the proposed missile defense shield President Bush had agreed to help build in Poland and the Czech Republic. Ostensibly, the whole thing was about protecting Europe from Iranian missiles, but it doesn't take a hardened realist to see that it could also be used to protect Europe against Russian missiles if needed as well. Obama backed away from the deal in no small part due to continued Russian objections. Seemingly, the US gambled that a more conciliatory attitude towards Russia would build trust and help relations. It's hard to argue that now. Although it would be naive to not recognize that defensive weapons can also be useful in an offensive war, the US never had any compelling reason to make it any easier for Russia to strike Europe militarily. Given that it is now clear that Russia is on an expansionistic course, I consider this to be one of President Obama's largest foreign policy blunders. However, for now Russia has just attacked Ukraine, and it has done so by pouring in troops rather than missiles. Missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic would not have protected Ukraine per se, though had Obama not wavered I think Russia might have been more reluctant to invade.
So, if we decide not to blame Obama for this mess, perhaps we can blame President Bush. After all, he was president when Russia fought a war with Georgia; there was no US military intervention in that conflict, either. Undoubtedly, Russia's successful war with Georgia enhanced its military morale and played a role in Russia's current willingness to commit its forces in Ukraine. Could, then, the Ukraine crisis have been prevented by a forceful response to the attack on Georgia? Here we have a situation where there is no good scenario. The world is reluctant to engage Russia militarily now because Russia is a great (and a nuclear) power. The world was equally reluctant to engage Russia in 2008 because Russia was a great (and a nuclear) power then too. Fighting World War III in 2008 would, if successful, have indeed prevented Russia from invading another country in 2014 in all probability, but at tremendous cost. Short of war, could Russia have been so punished that it would not invade Ukraine? That's a more interesting question and I don't know the answer to it. Perhaps President Bush and the rest of the world did let Putin get off too lightly. The Georgian situation was very different, though, in that the Georgian military did make a move to recapture South Ossetia, a separatist region backed by Russia. It's impossible to find a single virtuous actor in the whole conflict. The Ossetians and Abkhaz have treated Georgians abominably in the breakway areas, the Georgians have failed to respect the Abkhaz and the Ossetians' rights to self-determination, and the Russians have played the whole situation to their own advantage time and time again. From what I've read, I think there is something to the notion that Russia goaded Georgia into an attack through repeated provocations and pretty much planned the whole thing exactly as it unfolded. Be that as it may, Russia had some justification for going to war -- Georgia may have been manipulated, but it still acted foolishly and aggressively. Under the circumstances, it's not surprising Russia was not more isolated as a result of its military action in Georgia.
There's one other reason to tweak Bush: the Iraq war. What does that have to do with Russia or Ukraine? Perhaps more than one would expect. What really stands out to me as being unusual is the complete lack of casus belli in the Ukraine conflict. In retrospect, we can see the war in Iraq was also waged without a real casus belli -- the promised weapons of mass destruction the Bush administration warned the world about never materialized in Iraq. Thus, there doesn't seem to have been any immediate reason to strike at Iraq when we did. Admittedly, the concept of casus belli exists in our minds -- Saddam Hussein's past invasions and massacres were perhaps in and of themselves reasons for deposing him, and it makes no sense to have a "statute of limitations" for mass murder -- but the United States and its allies did not claim to be attacking Iraq because of Hussein's past misdeeds. A clear and present danger was claimed...falsely. For domestic consumption, Russia is currently claiming that it needs to "defend" Russians (really Russian-speaking Ukrainians) in Crimea and perhaps in eastern Ukraine as well. The problem is there are no dead Russians in the streets of Sevastopol, no Russians being rounded up into camps, and in general no signs of persecution or abuse of Russians. Crimea is already autonomous, and Russian speakers are in fact the majority in Crimea and much of eastern Ukraine rather than a persecuted minority. What needs to be defended then? Russia has pointed to legislative efforts to make Ukrainian the only official language of the country. The trouble is this effort failed -- nutty legislation gets proposed and then rejected all over the world all the time. Russia has also claimed that fascists have taken over Ukraine and evidently want to hurt the inherently non-Fascistic Russian residents of Ukraine. This plays well with how Russians view Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian nationalist who opposed the Soviets and showed a willingness to work with the Nazis against their common enemy for a time. Bandera, though, was really just a nationalist -- he was as uninterested in being ruled by the Nazis as he was in being ruled by the Soviets, and he ended up a prisoner in Germany. To me, Bandera is reminiscent of Dabrowski and the other Poles who fought for Napoleon in the hopes that it would lead to an independent Poland as well as Aung San who was willing to collaborate with the Japanese to throw the British out of Burma (like Bandera, Aung San's nationalism made him ultimately turn against his former sponsors). In all these cases, nationalists were willing to collaborate with evil to further their nationalistic aims. That's certainly not praiseworthy, but the notion of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" remains a cornerstone of modern foreign relations so it's hardly surprising behavior. In truth, the new government in Ukraine is diverse and I can't see how it could be called fascist in any serious sense. There is much concern over the Ukrainian nationalist party Svoboda having fascist leanings, but it doesn't control the government. I can remember well how much alarm the Russian "ultra-nationalist" Vladimir Zhirinovsky used to inspire in the United States. Despite playing a prominent role in Russian politics for many years, neither he nor his party have ever taken over the country. There's no reason to assume Svoboda will ever be able to take control over Ukraine -- at any rate, they certainly aren't running the country now. Russia has no reasonable pretext for acting as it has in Ukraine. In a sense, the US did establish a precedence for this in Iraq, and those countries that did oppose the Iraq invasion did so rather ineffectively, making it seem that major powers can get away with invading smaller countries for any reason they want. Putin no doubt expects the world's response to his invasion to be equally as weak and ineffective.
In conclusion, I doubt that the United States could have prevented Russia from invading Ukraine by doing any ONE thing. However, I think the invasion might not have happened had the US not invaded Iraq but had punished Russia more severely for its actions in Georgia, had stayed the course with regards to missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic, and had ignored Russian overtures in Syria (I would suggest that perhaps the US could have brokered its own deal with Syria without Russian involvement as an alternative to going to war). It's this chain of events -- the Iraq War making it seem that great powers can get away with anything combined with American weakness in response to Russian expressions of strength -- that has helped get us where we are today. Unlike the Amerocentric thinkers, however, I don't think the story ends there. Other countries have been too complacent as well...Putin's war machine is partly funded from the coffers of a fossil fuel hungry Europe after all. And perhaps there's no greater culprit overall than the failure of the international system that I mentioned in my previous post. Great powers simply can get away with too much in the current geopolitical environment. That's dangerous and has a tendency to lead to more and more war. If Putin isn't stopped in Ukraine, I wonder where he will be stopped...and who else will be tempted to follow in his footsteps.
Sunday, March 2, 2014
Obama and Putin in a Post-Foreign Policy Era
The Cold War was an extraordinary period in American history in that the perceived ideological threat posed by Communism and the perceived existential threat posed by the Soviet Union actually made foreign policy a driving concern of the American voter as well as the government. In more normal times, Americans tend to be more insular and self-absorbed -- that certainly seems to be true today following the interventionist presidency of George W. Bush. The recession and lingering unemployment have also given cause for Americans to look more inwards. However, the rest of the world continues to move regardless of who is watching. Even as we speak, troops are moving...Russian troops pouring into Ukraine, intent on wresting control of at the very least the Crimea. Should Americans care? Should the US government do anything?
What Russia's actions illustrate to me above all else is the broken state of the international system. The United Nations can hardly deter war when China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council with veto powers. The very powers likely to be involved in wars are empowered to prevent the rest of the world from uniting against them. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is perhaps a more effective alliance, but its very name indicates its provincial outlook -- it was not intended to be a truly global alliance and it is not. The only thing that seems to be saving us from global war is restraint and smaller alliances between countries. When a major power stops showing restraint, as Russia has done, and it attacks a country that is not a member of an effective alliance such as Ukraine, the major power can seemingly do whatever it wants.
What I find so galling about the Ukraine War is how Russia's naked self-interest and lust for territory are its only real motivations for invading Crimea. That Crimea has a large proportion of Russian speakers is irrelevant -- they could have a referendum on joining Russia if that's what they truly want and no Russian troops would have needed to be involved. Indeed, I would gladly have supported such a referendum; why shouldn't the residents of the Crimea determine their own fate without compulsion? Let there be an orderly and fair political process, and let everyone have a seat at the table, including the Tatars and Ukrainians who live in Crimea. Now, though, there can be no genuine political solution free of compulsion because the Russian military has involved itself. Any so-called Russian patriots in Crimea at this point may just be regular people who don't want to be killed. There seems to be little to no evidence that the Ukrainian central government is oppressing Russians in Crimea either -- Crimea is already autonomous within Ukraine, and the chaos in Ukraine after the removal of President Viktor Yanukovych has left a transitional government preoccupied with simply functioning at a basic level at this point. Russia merely has taken the opportunity to grab territory because it saw its neighbor was weak and vulnerable. Whether Russia outright annexes Crimea or creates a vassal state as it has done in Transdniestria makes little difference; this is an old-fashioned war waged for an old-fashioned reason: greed.
I don't expect American voters to demand action against Russia any time soon. The consequences of two major powers going to war with each other are potentially devastating. For the same reason, I expect President Obama and the US government to act with caution as well, merely cutting some economic and political ties to Russia. No doubt many other countries will do the same. The problem, though, is that none of this seems good enough. Russia knew the world would have a reaction of some sort, but it didn't care -- there is no effective deterrent to military actions by the great powers at this point. When war isn't punished, I fear there will be more of it. That's certainly been the lesson of history, learned painfully over and over again. In hindsight, President Obama's conciliatory gestures towards Russian president Vladimir Putin seem indefensible. Scrapping the United States' negotiated missile defense agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic because of Russian objectives seems particularly foolish -- beefing up the defenses of our allies unfortunately located near Russia may be the only way to curb Russian expansionism and prevent much bloodshed in the future. It's a sad state of affairs all around. It seems that American preoccupation with foreign policy, as in the Bush years, as well as American indifference towards foreign policy, as we have under the Obama administration especially with regards to the non-Islamic world, lead equally to catastrophe.
What Russia's actions illustrate to me above all else is the broken state of the international system. The United Nations can hardly deter war when China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council with veto powers. The very powers likely to be involved in wars are empowered to prevent the rest of the world from uniting against them. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is perhaps a more effective alliance, but its very name indicates its provincial outlook -- it was not intended to be a truly global alliance and it is not. The only thing that seems to be saving us from global war is restraint and smaller alliances between countries. When a major power stops showing restraint, as Russia has done, and it attacks a country that is not a member of an effective alliance such as Ukraine, the major power can seemingly do whatever it wants.
What I find so galling about the Ukraine War is how Russia's naked self-interest and lust for territory are its only real motivations for invading Crimea. That Crimea has a large proportion of Russian speakers is irrelevant -- they could have a referendum on joining Russia if that's what they truly want and no Russian troops would have needed to be involved. Indeed, I would gladly have supported such a referendum; why shouldn't the residents of the Crimea determine their own fate without compulsion? Let there be an orderly and fair political process, and let everyone have a seat at the table, including the Tatars and Ukrainians who live in Crimea. Now, though, there can be no genuine political solution free of compulsion because the Russian military has involved itself. Any so-called Russian patriots in Crimea at this point may just be regular people who don't want to be killed. There seems to be little to no evidence that the Ukrainian central government is oppressing Russians in Crimea either -- Crimea is already autonomous within Ukraine, and the chaos in Ukraine after the removal of President Viktor Yanukovych has left a transitional government preoccupied with simply functioning at a basic level at this point. Russia merely has taken the opportunity to grab territory because it saw its neighbor was weak and vulnerable. Whether Russia outright annexes Crimea or creates a vassal state as it has done in Transdniestria makes little difference; this is an old-fashioned war waged for an old-fashioned reason: greed.
I don't expect American voters to demand action against Russia any time soon. The consequences of two major powers going to war with each other are potentially devastating. For the same reason, I expect President Obama and the US government to act with caution as well, merely cutting some economic and political ties to Russia. No doubt many other countries will do the same. The problem, though, is that none of this seems good enough. Russia knew the world would have a reaction of some sort, but it didn't care -- there is no effective deterrent to military actions by the great powers at this point. When war isn't punished, I fear there will be more of it. That's certainly been the lesson of history, learned painfully over and over again. In hindsight, President Obama's conciliatory gestures towards Russian president Vladimir Putin seem indefensible. Scrapping the United States' negotiated missile defense agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic because of Russian objectives seems particularly foolish -- beefing up the defenses of our allies unfortunately located near Russia may be the only way to curb Russian expansionism and prevent much bloodshed in the future. It's a sad state of affairs all around. It seems that American preoccupation with foreign policy, as in the Bush years, as well as American indifference towards foreign policy, as we have under the Obama administration especially with regards to the non-Islamic world, lead equally to catastrophe.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Respect for the Gridlockian
With control of Congress divided between the two parties, not much is happening in Washington, DC at the moment. Most people don't seem to be very happy about that: as of February 2012, only 10% of Americans approve of Congress. Gridlock, it seems, has very few champions. This is probably because voters are in general an unhappy lot. People participate in politics to bring about change -- protecting the status quo (knowing full well that the country and the world are fraught with problems) just doesn't motivate many people to volunteer for or donate to campaigns, let alone cast a ballot on Election Day. Right now, people are unhappy with Congress for different reasons. Staunch partisans want members of the other party to bow to their party's will. Moderates want Congress to work together to find happy compromises that will drive the partisans insane. Everyone (well, at least 90% of everyone), though, is unhappy at a government that is stuck in place and not instituting change of some kind.
Still, I wonder a bit why gridlock has such a universally poor reputation. Are people just inherently drawn to change and evolution, regardless of political philosophy? Part of it, no doubt, is that the chattering classes (be they historians, bloggers, or journalists) who help shape the nation's consciousness have reason to long to live in "interesting times" -- the more change, the better! It's just not interesting to talk about things staying the same. To actually be a regular American during the tenure of a "great historical figure" tends to be disastrous, though; Lincoln and FDR were bold presidents who dealt forcefully with crises (and whose parties had control of Congress during their presidencies), to be sure, but their presidencies were hellish times of death and hardship. The gridlocked Clinton presidency, on the other hand, was a time of prosperity. Even now the economy seems to be as improving even as Washington is perhaps as gridlocked as it ever has been (not that the two necessarily have anything to do with each other). If you're deeply invested in a particular political philosophy, gridlock can only be an impediment to the glorious future you want to see legislated into existence...on the other hand, though, if you're less of a believer and more of a skeptic when it comes to government and politics in general, I'm not sure why you'd necessarily view gridlock as being inherently bad.
So, could there be room in politics for a true "Gridlockian" movement? Perhaps not at the moment, but I think there are reasons why such a movement should exist. To support gridlock is to truly be a "conservative" not in the standard political sense but in the sense of wanting to keep things the way they are. Preserving the status quo may never be sexy, but in practice it means keeping the rules of the game the same. It means not forcing people and businesses to adjust to a steady stream of new taxes and new regulations -- instead, you just need to learn the rules on the books once and keep following them. Stability and knowing what to expect from government aren't bad things, though the perpetuation of bad and unjust laws is a unfortunate side effect of "stability." Still, even something as scary and complicated as the tax code is easier to navigate if you don't have to relearn it constantly. Gridlock doesn't exactly mean that the government doesn't do ANYTHING, either. Instead, it just means that government does less and is more restrained in its choices of action; theoretically, a gridlocked government should still be able to tackle the Really Important Stuff provided that Congress and the president both agree that it's Really Important Stuff. For instance, I have absolutely no confidence that a gridlocked government would not go to war unnecessarily; war is always in the Really Important Stuff category so there'll always be room for a dangerous meeting of the minds. On the other hand, it also seems to be a given that some Really Important Stuff will never be acknowledged by one or the other party as Really Important Stuff due to the ideological blinders that all partisans wear.
What I like best about gridlock is that it limits the power of both the presidency and Congress. It's the checks and balances system in practice. Truthfully, we shouldn't need gridlock for the executive and legislative branches to check each other's power, but the perniciousness of the party system has made it so. Rick Santorum was just being honest when he said he voted for No Child Left Behind against his personal beliefs in order to be a "team player" -- political parties insist that individual legislators and executives to leave their principles behind when the party requires it. As long as that is the case, there is most definitely a place for gridlock and gridlockians in my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)