Sunday, December 27, 1942
By Combined Wire Services
WASHINGTON – While U.S. casualties continue to increase across the Pacific, and with a ground offensive recently initiated against Nazi-held North Africa, the president’s war plan to halt Germany's and Japan’s ambitions is under scrutiny by a skeptical Congress, with some members saying that President Roosevelt deliberately provoked a needless war against the two countries.
Nearly 13 months after the most damaging military attack on U.S. soil, the strike against Pearl Harbor, on the Hawaiian Island of Oahu, is now under Congressional investigation. In some quarters of Congress, there are concerns that the President may have either previously known about Japan’s plans to attack the U.S. base – or deliberately and clandestinely provoked a war with Japan, which forced Germany to declare war against the United States.
Worse, Roosevelt’s critics say, once he knew of Japan’s plans to strike Pearl Harbor, he refused to alert his military commanders, so U.S. forces in the Pacific would be caught by surprise. This would then gain U.S. public support for America’s entry into World War II, the president’s Congressional critics say.
Prior to the attack, the Gallup opinion poll said there was little domestic support for fighting either Japan or Germany. After Pearl Harbor, public opinion shifted drastically in favor of fighting both countries.
“If you look at FDR’s actions between 1940 and 1941,” said U.S. Rep. Martin Sweeney (D-OH), “he was trying to find a way to have Japan and Germany fight the United States.”
Shortly after the attack, Congress formed a joint Senate and House committee to investigate its causes as well as the administration’s policies toward Japan prior to the attack.
“We’ve come across a very interesting memo,” said U.S. Sen. Alben Barkley, (D-KY), who chairs the committee investigating the surprise attack. “It appears to confirm some concerns that the administration may have been overly aggressive in its approach to Japan” before it attacked Pearl Harbor.
The Senator would give few details about the note but described it as “written by a naval officer who appears to have great knowledge of the Japanese.”
The War Department would neither confirm nor deny the memo’s existence.
Congressional support for the Roosevelt Administration’s war policies is weakening, critics say, because of heavy U.S. military losses.
The Army and the Marines, battling Japanese troops on the Pacific Islands of New Guinea and Guadalcanal, have suffered thousands of casualties. In addition, the Navy has lost a number of ships, including five aircraft carriers, to the Japanese, this year.
Congressional critics say the United States, unprepared for war against Japan, was forced to surrender some of its most strategic Pacific possessions, including Wake and Guam Islands as well as the Philippines.
“Had our military commanders been better led by the President,” said U.S. Sen. Homer Ferguson, (R-MI), “there’s a good chance we would not have been forced to give up our strategic outposts in the Pacific.”
The loss of the Philippines was particularly devastating because 76,000 U.S. troops, the largest U.S. military force to ever capitulate in the country’s history, surrendered to the Japanese. Coincidentally, the troops surrendered on the 77th anniversary of the day that Confederate General Robert E. Lee ordered his army to lay down its arms to forces led by Union General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox, Virginia, which ended the Civil War.
While the Navy stopped the Japanese at the Battle of the Coral Sea in May and again, in June, at the Battle of Midway, an archipelago just north of Hawaii, the losses for these two victories were costly, including hundreds of planes and two aircraft carriers. The other three U.S. aircraft carriers were lost during other Pacific battles against the Japanese.
Japan’s losses at the Battle of Midway, Navy intelligence says, were even higher, including four aircraft carriers, two cruisers, three destroyers and some small boats. Japan's losses have not been confirmed by Tokyo.
Another military success against Japan, although limited in its effect, included the bombing of Japan. Many of the operation’s details remain secret.
On the ground, however, the fighting situation is quite different. U.S. soldiers and Marines find themselves bogged down battling an entrenched enemy. U.S. losses on New Guinea and Guadalcanal are heavy – into the thousands – because Japanese troops, military commanders say, often fight to the death rather than surrender.
“I’m afraid a lot of people think the Jap is a ‘pushover,’” said Army Air Force Lt. Gen. George Kenney, who heads up the Allied Air Forces in the southwest Pacific. “We will have to call on all our patriotism, stamina, guts, and maybe some crusading spirit or religious fervor thrown in, to beat him.
“No amateur team will take this boy out. You take on Notre Dame, every time you play,” the general said.
Shortly after the mid-term elections, the Army landed troops in Algeria and Morocco to liberate North Africa from German occupation. The operation, under the command of Lt. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, if it is successful, will allow the Allies to move more freely around the Mediterranean Sea.
Prior to Germany’s declaration of war against the United States, diplomatic relations between the two countries had reached a stand-off, with the United States closing 24 German consulates across the country, saying they were havens for Nazi spies.
In addition, the United States loaned Great Britain 50 destroyers in exchange for 99-year leases on certain British Naval Bases, including those in Newfoundland, Bermuda and the West Indies.
“The destroyer trade was an ‘out-right declaration of war’,” said U.S. Sen. Gerald Nye, (R-ND). “It was a belligerent act that weakened our defenses.”
Seven months prior to the outbreak of war with Germany, the Navy started engaging the Third Reich’s submarines while escorting merchant ships sailing between the United States and Great Britain.
The United States even started supplying Great Britain with materiel it needed to survive Germany’s onslaught. The President defended U.S actions by saying, “If your neighbor’s house is on fire, you lend him your garden hose so your house is safe.”
“We were fighting Germany before the war even happened,” said Senator Ferguson. “It’s becoming quite clear that the President acted without Congressional authority to do that.”
(Writer’s note: This account is entirely fictional. Some of the information is accurate. This article is intended to be thought-provoking. Is it possible for anyone to understand the action’s any country takes during wartime? Are there any similarities between President Roosevelt’s actions, in his attempt to defeat fascism, and those of President George W. Bush, in his attempt to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq? Could World War II have ended differently?)
Friday, February 23, 2007
Friday, February 09, 2007
Why They're Running
With the U.S. presidential primary season about a year away, let’s review le raison d’êtra for the candidates seeking their party’s nomination for the nation’s highest political job as well as where the campaigns stand on financing.
U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, (D-NY), the Democratic Party’s frontrunner, with more than $11 million in cash, according to Political Money Line, a unit of the Congressional Quarterly, is running so she can become her husband’s co-equal. It bothers her that Bill’s a former president while she’s only a senator.
She has more than twice as much money as U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd, (CT), and has received, Political Money Line reports, nearly 27,000 individual campaign contributions. At this point in the campaign, Hillary is tough to beat. She has the organization, the money, and is owed many favors, so it’s highly unlikely that she’ll lose the primaries.
Dodd, in his fifth Senate term, is running for the nomination because he’s opposed to the Iraq War. He’s an excellent representative for Connecticut, but outside of the Nutmeg State, he’s hardly known.
Political Money Line reports that Dodd has nearly $5 million in his campaign but has received only 99 individual campaign contributions. Part of Dodd’s war chest, according to Political Money Line, comes from the money he has for his Senate campaign.
Dodd “sent a letter to the Federal Election Commission stating that he ‘is no longer a candidate in the 2010 election for the United States Senate in Connecticut,’” reports Political Money Line.
This allows Dodd to declare that his Senate campaign “has excess funds and transfer the funds to his presidential committee.” The Senate campaign, reports Political Money Line, had about $1.9 million as of the end of September 2006.
Dodd isn’t as calculating , crafty and conniving as Hillary. And his public speaking abilities pale in comparison to hers. Look for Dodd to be one of the first candidates to pull out of the primary.
John Edwards
Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, (D-NC), is running because he wants another shot at the nomination. He was a loyal solider for his party during the last presidential campaign when he served as U.S. Sen. John Kerry’s running mate. The team failed, mostly because of Kerry, so Edwards figures the nomination is rightly his.
He’s also opposed to the Iraq War and his campaign will focus on “two Americas – one rich, one poor” like he did during the last presidential primary.
Edwards, figuring he better get a jump on the competition, has been campaigning since last summer. He comes across as a sincerely nice guy but also a bit of lightweight. It’s highly unlikely his candidacy will hold up for long against the competition.
Political Money Line reports that his Political Action Committee, One America Committee, had less than $9,000 in cash as of the end of January. There doesn’t appear to be any reporting, so far, on how much money his campaign has. This is likely due to the fact that he hasn’t officially declared his candidacy.
When Democrats go to the polls during the primary season, they’ll likely recall that Edwards was part of a losing presidential ticket in 2004 and, as a result, they’ll vote for someone else.
Joe Biden
U.S. Sen. Joe Biden, (D-DE), has been running for his party’s nomination, either overtly or covertly, since 1988. Perhaps Senator Biden should realize he’s a long shot – at best! – and give it up.
While Biden has done well with campaign contributions, about $3.6 million according to Political Money Line, it’s hard to figure out what this candidacy is all about. He’ll play up his his experience on the Senate’s foreign relations committee.
Given that background, along with his inability, so far, to wage a successful national campaign, plus his foot-in-mouth issues, Biden is more likely to become the next Secretary of State to a President Hillary Clinton than he is to become the country’s next President. Perhaps that’s what he really wants, the nation’s top diplomatic job.
Barack Obama
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL), is running – if he actually decides to run – to show the Democratic establishment that a good man can’t be kept down. He’s also seeks, and rightly so, to show that a black man can, indeed, be elected President.
The problem Senator Obama has is that he hasn’t been completely vetted in the same manner that his competitors have, especially Senator Clinton. If he declares that he’s candidate, he will have to survive some very harsh scrutiny, not only from the national media but also from his fellow Senate colleagues.
Obama stands out among his competitors because he’s a black man. This will make it easier for him to gain attention, which should translate into winning votes, if he decides to run. But, at this point, he doesn’t appear to be as well organized as Senator Clinton. Also, according to Political Money Line, his “Obama 2010 Inc” committee has just over $500,000.
That committee is established to help him run for reelection to the Senate in 2010. That money could also be used for any future presidential run he makes.
Evan Bayh
The true dark horse among the Democrats might be U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh, (D-IN) whose campaign is almost as well-healed as Hillary Clinton’s, with nearly $11 million in the bank, according to Political Money Line, as of December 31, 2006.
This means he’s organized, aggressive at raising money, and just might be the strongest alternative to Senator Clinton. The last part depends on whether he’s as good on the campaign trail as he has been getting his campaign financed.
The problem Bayh suffers from is that the national media isn’t paying attention to his campaign. Unless he can turn that around, he’ll go down as the most well-financed forgotten presidential candidate in recent years.
Bayh can certainly tout his experience as a two-term governor in a heavily Republican state. But other than that, there’s not much about his candidacy that’s going to get someone excited about him.
Bill Richardson
The last alternative to Senator Clinton is New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who served as President Clinton’s United Nation’s ambassador and was also his Energy Secretary. He’s former a presidential exploratory committee but has yet to declare his candidacy.
Among Democrats, and even Republicans, Richardson might be the politician with the most experience. He was a member of the House of Representatives for 15 years before going on to serve in the United Nations and then in President Clinton’s cabinet. As a result, he has both domestic and foreign policy experience.
His experience overseeing America’s energy issues shouldn’t be diminished. President Bush has said he’d like reduce the country’s oil consumption. Richardson could position himself as the presidential candidate who knows how to do that.
On personal issues, Richardson is also a very attractive candidate. He was born in California, an important state to win during the primary and general election. His mother was Mexican and word is that he’s fluent in Spanish.
The question about Richardson is will he generate any excitement.
Qualifications for Office
Qualifications don’t matter all that much to the electorate, during either the primary or general campaign seasons. If experience mattered, George H. W. Bush, with a background in business, diplomacy and Congress, would have taken the presidential oath on January 20, 1981.
Instead, Ronald Reagan, a former actor and former California governor, who campaigned on America’s inherit strength, became the nation’s 40th President. Successful presidential candidates, like Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, center their campaigns primarily around their personality.
They also evoke a visceral reaction among their supports as well as their detractors. If the American electorate thinks someone’s personality is a good fit for the nation’s challenges, and they find them likeable, there’s a high probability they’ll vote for that person.
The Republican line-up
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani, the hero of 9/11, is the man to beat for the Republican presidential nomination. Like his leading counterpart for the Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Rudy, as he’s known to friends and foes, is a controversial figure, evoking a visceral response.
And that just might make him the next president.
Guiliani, if he runs, will center his campaign around the leadership he demonstrated during the tragic day of September 11, 2001, and the weeks that followed before he left office. He’ll also talk up the fact that he knows how to run the country’s largest city as well as his experience as a former prosecutor who convicted one of the mob’s top kingpins, John Gotti.
So far, the only thing Rudy has announced is that he’s former a presidential exploratory committee. Political Money Line reports that he has more than $2 million from his former Senate campaign committee.
He raised more than $170,000 during 2006’s fourth quarter, Political Money Line reports, out-earning his two rivals, Sam Brownback and John McCain, significantly.
Like all political candidates, Guiliani’s background, and positions, make him vulnerable to the more strident, perhaps even pure, among his party. He’s been married three times and his last divorce, from New York City television talk show host Donna Hanover, was very public and very acrimonious.
Rudy’s position on a number of social issues, like gay marriage and abortion, is out of line with traditional Republican thinking. Still, at this point, he’s the man to beat for the nomination.
Rudy will tell the Republican faithful that he’s a Republican where it counts – winning in Iraq and Afghanistan and taking on the terrorists. Rudy hopes that his moderate positions on social issues, including stem cell research, will make him palatable to the electorate during the presidential campaign.
John McCain
Like Guiliani, U.S. Sen. John McCain, (R-AZ), is running as a candidate more concerned about defeating terrorists, whether they’re in Iraq and elsewhere, than he is in making abortion illegal.
McCain will nod and wink to the Republican faithful that he’s a conservative of social issues and, at the same time, will work hard to win the votes of social moderates by saying, in one way or another, that defeating terrorists outweighs abortion.
McCain, like Guiliani, is divorced and has since remarried. But unlike his fellow Republicans, and more than a few Democrats, he’s the only one candidate who’s served in the military. He’ll campaign, often, has a Vietnam War hero.
Mitt Romney
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, if he formerly enters the race, will center around his religion and how it does not prevent him from enacting and or signing legislation that the Church of Latter Day Saints opposes.
He’ll want to spend more time talking up his background as a leading business executive, as a governor and as the president of the 2002 Winter Olympics, held in Salt Lake City.
The son of a three-term Michigan governor, Romney sees himself, at least in business, as a turnaround specialist, having erased a “$3 billion budget gap inherited when he took office,” says the Web site touting his presidential exploratory committee.
The big question every Republican should ask Romney is why he left the Massachusetts governorship after only one term. He would be in a far stronger position had he remained in the job because it would allow him to tell primary voters that he’s a conservative in a liberal state – and found to be very acceptable.
He’s opposed to abortion and, like many a Republican, is looking for victory in the Middle East. Other top concerns include taxes, China and international trade.
Prior to entering public life, Romney had been an executive with consulting firm Bain & Company. His Political Action Committee, says Political Money Line, reports having around $185,000 on hand as of January 31, 2007.
Sam Brownback
U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, (R-KS), holds the Senate seat of former U.S. Sen. Robert Dole. He’s a true-blue conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan.
Brownback is probably the most conservative Republican in the primary. He’s an evangelical Christian and is opposed to gay marriage and abortion.
At this point, his campaign, according to Political Money Line, has around $40,000.00. He’s got a long way to go to catch up with the Former Mayor of New York.
Newt Gingrich
Lurking in the background among Republicans is former U.S. Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. He hasn’t declared his presidency but he certainly has a robust Web site. More on Newt next time.
U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, (D-NY), the Democratic Party’s frontrunner, with more than $11 million in cash, according to Political Money Line, a unit of the Congressional Quarterly, is running so she can become her husband’s co-equal. It bothers her that Bill’s a former president while she’s only a senator.
She has more than twice as much money as U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd, (CT), and has received, Political Money Line reports, nearly 27,000 individual campaign contributions. At this point in the campaign, Hillary is tough to beat. She has the organization, the money, and is owed many favors, so it’s highly unlikely that she’ll lose the primaries.
Dodd, in his fifth Senate term, is running for the nomination because he’s opposed to the Iraq War. He’s an excellent representative for Connecticut, but outside of the Nutmeg State, he’s hardly known.
Political Money Line reports that Dodd has nearly $5 million in his campaign but has received only 99 individual campaign contributions. Part of Dodd’s war chest, according to Political Money Line, comes from the money he has for his Senate campaign.
Dodd “sent a letter to the Federal Election Commission stating that he ‘is no longer a candidate in the 2010 election for the United States Senate in Connecticut,’” reports Political Money Line.
This allows Dodd to declare that his Senate campaign “has excess funds and transfer the funds to his presidential committee.” The Senate campaign, reports Political Money Line, had about $1.9 million as of the end of September 2006.
Dodd isn’t as calculating , crafty and conniving as Hillary. And his public speaking abilities pale in comparison to hers. Look for Dodd to be one of the first candidates to pull out of the primary.
John Edwards
Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, (D-NC), is running because he wants another shot at the nomination. He was a loyal solider for his party during the last presidential campaign when he served as U.S. Sen. John Kerry’s running mate. The team failed, mostly because of Kerry, so Edwards figures the nomination is rightly his.
He’s also opposed to the Iraq War and his campaign will focus on “two Americas – one rich, one poor” like he did during the last presidential primary.
Edwards, figuring he better get a jump on the competition, has been campaigning since last summer. He comes across as a sincerely nice guy but also a bit of lightweight. It’s highly unlikely his candidacy will hold up for long against the competition.
Political Money Line reports that his Political Action Committee, One America Committee, had less than $9,000 in cash as of the end of January. There doesn’t appear to be any reporting, so far, on how much money his campaign has. This is likely due to the fact that he hasn’t officially declared his candidacy.
When Democrats go to the polls during the primary season, they’ll likely recall that Edwards was part of a losing presidential ticket in 2004 and, as a result, they’ll vote for someone else.
Joe Biden
U.S. Sen. Joe Biden, (D-DE), has been running for his party’s nomination, either overtly or covertly, since 1988. Perhaps Senator Biden should realize he’s a long shot – at best! – and give it up.
While Biden has done well with campaign contributions, about $3.6 million according to Political Money Line, it’s hard to figure out what this candidacy is all about. He’ll play up his his experience on the Senate’s foreign relations committee.
Given that background, along with his inability, so far, to wage a successful national campaign, plus his foot-in-mouth issues, Biden is more likely to become the next Secretary of State to a President Hillary Clinton than he is to become the country’s next President. Perhaps that’s what he really wants, the nation’s top diplomatic job.
Barack Obama
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL), is running – if he actually decides to run – to show the Democratic establishment that a good man can’t be kept down. He’s also seeks, and rightly so, to show that a black man can, indeed, be elected President.
The problem Senator Obama has is that he hasn’t been completely vetted in the same manner that his competitors have, especially Senator Clinton. If he declares that he’s candidate, he will have to survive some very harsh scrutiny, not only from the national media but also from his fellow Senate colleagues.
Obama stands out among his competitors because he’s a black man. This will make it easier for him to gain attention, which should translate into winning votes, if he decides to run. But, at this point, he doesn’t appear to be as well organized as Senator Clinton. Also, according to Political Money Line, his “Obama 2010 Inc” committee has just over $500,000.
That committee is established to help him run for reelection to the Senate in 2010. That money could also be used for any future presidential run he makes.
Evan Bayh
The true dark horse among the Democrats might be U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh, (D-IN) whose campaign is almost as well-healed as Hillary Clinton’s, with nearly $11 million in the bank, according to Political Money Line, as of December 31, 2006.
This means he’s organized, aggressive at raising money, and just might be the strongest alternative to Senator Clinton. The last part depends on whether he’s as good on the campaign trail as he has been getting his campaign financed.
The problem Bayh suffers from is that the national media isn’t paying attention to his campaign. Unless he can turn that around, he’ll go down as the most well-financed forgotten presidential candidate in recent years.
Bayh can certainly tout his experience as a two-term governor in a heavily Republican state. But other than that, there’s not much about his candidacy that’s going to get someone excited about him.
Bill Richardson
The last alternative to Senator Clinton is New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who served as President Clinton’s United Nation’s ambassador and was also his Energy Secretary. He’s former a presidential exploratory committee but has yet to declare his candidacy.
Among Democrats, and even Republicans, Richardson might be the politician with the most experience. He was a member of the House of Representatives for 15 years before going on to serve in the United Nations and then in President Clinton’s cabinet. As a result, he has both domestic and foreign policy experience.
His experience overseeing America’s energy issues shouldn’t be diminished. President Bush has said he’d like reduce the country’s oil consumption. Richardson could position himself as the presidential candidate who knows how to do that.
On personal issues, Richardson is also a very attractive candidate. He was born in California, an important state to win during the primary and general election. His mother was Mexican and word is that he’s fluent in Spanish.
The question about Richardson is will he generate any excitement.
Qualifications for Office
Qualifications don’t matter all that much to the electorate, during either the primary or general campaign seasons. If experience mattered, George H. W. Bush, with a background in business, diplomacy and Congress, would have taken the presidential oath on January 20, 1981.
Instead, Ronald Reagan, a former actor and former California governor, who campaigned on America’s inherit strength, became the nation’s 40th President. Successful presidential candidates, like Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, center their campaigns primarily around their personality.
They also evoke a visceral reaction among their supports as well as their detractors. If the American electorate thinks someone’s personality is a good fit for the nation’s challenges, and they find them likeable, there’s a high probability they’ll vote for that person.
The Republican line-up
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani, the hero of 9/11, is the man to beat for the Republican presidential nomination. Like his leading counterpart for the Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Rudy, as he’s known to friends and foes, is a controversial figure, evoking a visceral response.
And that just might make him the next president.
Guiliani, if he runs, will center his campaign around the leadership he demonstrated during the tragic day of September 11, 2001, and the weeks that followed before he left office. He’ll also talk up the fact that he knows how to run the country’s largest city as well as his experience as a former prosecutor who convicted one of the mob’s top kingpins, John Gotti.
So far, the only thing Rudy has announced is that he’s former a presidential exploratory committee. Political Money Line reports that he has more than $2 million from his former Senate campaign committee.
He raised more than $170,000 during 2006’s fourth quarter, Political Money Line reports, out-earning his two rivals, Sam Brownback and John McCain, significantly.
Like all political candidates, Guiliani’s background, and positions, make him vulnerable to the more strident, perhaps even pure, among his party. He’s been married three times and his last divorce, from New York City television talk show host Donna Hanover, was very public and very acrimonious.
Rudy’s position on a number of social issues, like gay marriage and abortion, is out of line with traditional Republican thinking. Still, at this point, he’s the man to beat for the nomination.
Rudy will tell the Republican faithful that he’s a Republican where it counts – winning in Iraq and Afghanistan and taking on the terrorists. Rudy hopes that his moderate positions on social issues, including stem cell research, will make him palatable to the electorate during the presidential campaign.
John McCain
Like Guiliani, U.S. Sen. John McCain, (R-AZ), is running as a candidate more concerned about defeating terrorists, whether they’re in Iraq and elsewhere, than he is in making abortion illegal.
McCain will nod and wink to the Republican faithful that he’s a conservative of social issues and, at the same time, will work hard to win the votes of social moderates by saying, in one way or another, that defeating terrorists outweighs abortion.
McCain, like Guiliani, is divorced and has since remarried. But unlike his fellow Republicans, and more than a few Democrats, he’s the only one candidate who’s served in the military. He’ll campaign, often, has a Vietnam War hero.
Mitt Romney
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, if he formerly enters the race, will center around his religion and how it does not prevent him from enacting and or signing legislation that the Church of Latter Day Saints opposes.
He’ll want to spend more time talking up his background as a leading business executive, as a governor and as the president of the 2002 Winter Olympics, held in Salt Lake City.
The son of a three-term Michigan governor, Romney sees himself, at least in business, as a turnaround specialist, having erased a “$3 billion budget gap inherited when he took office,” says the Web site touting his presidential exploratory committee.
The big question every Republican should ask Romney is why he left the Massachusetts governorship after only one term. He would be in a far stronger position had he remained in the job because it would allow him to tell primary voters that he’s a conservative in a liberal state – and found to be very acceptable.
He’s opposed to abortion and, like many a Republican, is looking for victory in the Middle East. Other top concerns include taxes, China and international trade.
Prior to entering public life, Romney had been an executive with consulting firm Bain & Company. His Political Action Committee, says Political Money Line, reports having around $185,000 on hand as of January 31, 2007.
Sam Brownback
U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, (R-KS), holds the Senate seat of former U.S. Sen. Robert Dole. He’s a true-blue conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan.
Brownback is probably the most conservative Republican in the primary. He’s an evangelical Christian and is opposed to gay marriage and abortion.
At this point, his campaign, according to Political Money Line, has around $40,000.00. He’s got a long way to go to catch up with the Former Mayor of New York.
Newt Gingrich
Lurking in the background among Republicans is former U.S. Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. He hasn’t declared his presidency but he certainly has a robust Web site. More on Newt next time.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Damsel in Distress or Iron Lady?
While U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL), makes an interesting candidate for president – an attractive black man, as his Senate colleague Joe Biden said rather stupidly last week – the one who actually holds the cards to winning the nomination would likely make a far better chief executive.
U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, (D-NY), evokes a visceral reaction among both her supporters and those who, without any diplomacy or tact, will tell anyone within listening distance that they hate her.
Since 1992, when she came onto the country’s national political scene, Hillary has been both a source of pride and contempt for the Democratic Party. She doesn’t play by the rules established for First Ladies, either current or former. And now, here she is, barely into her second term as a United States Senator, and she’s the one to beat for her party’s presidential nomination next year.
It’s just so unfair.
The only other First Ladies who were as close to being as controversial as Hillary include Rosaylnn Carter (she announced she’d join her husband for the Cabinet meetings); Betty Ford (she supported a woman’s right to choose); and Eleanor Roosevelt (who toured the country and stumped for her husband).
Had Senator Clinton been the traditional First Lady, her husband would remain in the spotlight – or in as much of the spotlight as former presidents receive – and she would confine herself to staying within his shadow.
But anyone who knows anything about Senator Clinton knows that’s not her style. She only retreats to lick her wounds and find another way to achieve victory.
During the 1992 presidential campaign, Hillary proudly announced that she didn’t stay home “and bake cookies.” While the comment may not have been intended as an insult to First Lady Barbara Bush, it certainly drew a distinction between the Baby Boomer and World War II generations.
(Bill Clinton was the first Baby Boomer to be elected President while George H.W. Bush was the last President to have served in the military during World War II.)
While her husband was Arkansas’ governor, Senator Clinton was a partner in the Rose Law Firm and, according to Wikipedia, she chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee, the Rural Health Advisory Committee; she also introduced, according to Wikipedia, the Arkansas Home Instructional Program for Preschool Youth, “which trains parents to work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy.”
The online encyclopedia also reports that the Senator was named Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983 and Arkansas Mother of the Year in 1984. Her business experience, during her Little Rock days, included serving on the Board of Directors of TCBY, The Country’s Best Yogurt, and Wal-Mart stores.
Shortly after her husband won the presidential election, she was appointed to lead the presidential task force investigating ways to change the nation’s healthcare system. The task force met privately, making it an easy target for Republicans, which later helped them take control of Congress during the 1994 midterm elections.
After the healthcare plan, one of the single largest controversies surrounding Senator Clinton was the way she handled herself during President Clinton’s impeachment and subsequent trial as well as the way she stood by him after it had been revealed that he’d had an affair – a sordid, quick fling is a better description – with a White House intern.
Monica Lewinsky wasn’t the President’s first mistress; during the presidential campaign in 1992, Bill Clinton admitted that he’d damaged their marriage, perhaps more than once; while in the White House, it was reported that he’d had at least one another dalliance.
The Senator had two ways to handle this affair: She could walk out on him, thereby making her the first First Lady to ever divorce and/or separate from her husband; or she could stand by him, the option she chose.
Hillary’s decision reveals a lot about her. She may not have exactly had her eyes on the Senate in 1998, when the affair with Monica was made public. At the same time, it cannot be simply dismissed that she was not planning her post-White House years either. She said, more than once, that Bill Clinton did his thing and she did hers.
While she may have forgiven the president for his transgression with Monica – we’ll never really know – it’s also equally possible that she figured that Bill Clinton’s former wife would never have as much political cache as his current wife. And that was likely one of the reasons she stood by him.
Hillary also saw in Bill Clinton something she needed – a masterful politician to guide her through the trials and tribulations that any national and state-wide politician encounters. He had an ability to confound the Republican majority in Congress and look better after every assault launched against him. She knew, especially when she decided to run for the Senate, that his advice, knowledge and experience would be required to win the campaign.
Losing the Senate seat to a relative unknown, like U.S. Rep. Rick Lazio, was simply not an option. She had to win, especially if she wanted any kind of political future that wouldn’t require her to play second fiddle to her husband.
For that matter, Bill Clinton equally knew that to place his legacy in good standing, Hillary had to win. A Hillary victory, to Bill Clinton, is spawning a politician in his own mold, and it keeps him in front of the American electorate.
As she shown already, Hillary will make sure that no one can “out-left” her. The primaries are a time when the party faithful vote, so Hillary will do whatever is necessary to show them that she’s the Democrat they want returned to The White House. Her husband will campaign for her, too.
She’ll beat Barack Obama for this simple reason – there are politicians that owe her favors. After eight years in The White House, and more than six years in the Senate, there are governors and members of Congress who owe her (and her husband) in a way that they don’t owe Senator Obama.
Senator Obama will get there, but it will take a few more years than he’d like. Who knows, there’s a good chance he could wind up as Hillary’s running mate.
After she sows up the nomination, Hillary, in an attempt to capture the votes of independents and dispirited Republicans, will move to the center – at least in her speeches. She’ll essentially tell America that she’s tough on defense and illegal immigration; supports adoption (along with a woman’s right to choose); likes hunters (but supports tough hand-gun legislation); is tough on crime; supports environmental causes; and will say that the world’s perception of America needs to be improved. She’ll dance around Iraq and Afghanistan. If necessary, she’ll talk about a time-line to bring the troops home.
All of that just might secure a White House victory. But, of course, any presidential campaign with Hillary leading the ticket contains a very possible, and very serious, vulnerability. It’s her husband.
A vote for Hillary, Republicans will say, is a vote for Bill. (In fact, you can expect the Republicans to make Hillary to look live the Devil.) The Republicans will say President Clinton left the country vulnerable to terrorism (He had a chance to kill Osama bin Laden while he was in The Sudan but failed to take it) and they’ll remind the country that the Clinton Administration was once charged with selling high-tech secrets to China. And let’s not forget the impeachment hearings.
If Hillary survives this assault – and the Republicans stumble – she’ll likely be elected.
What Kind of President will she be?
Gender will play a role in how Hillary conducts herself in office. It’ll force her to be harsher in some areas, like national defense, and softer in others, like families and children.
As the first woman to become president, Hillary will need to prove, more so than the average male president, not that she’s about to surrender the country and its interests to some of our toughest enemies, like North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.
(Hillary was recently asked in Iowa if she had any background in dealing with “evil” men. Some interpreted the way she asked the question as an acknowledgement of having dealt with her husband, which she’s since denied. Even if we accept her denial at face value, let’s face it, she’s dealt with a husband who’s admitted to being less than faithful to his marriage.)
Hillary’s gender will force her to act tough when it comes to foreign policy, much in the same way it forced former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s hand. She had no choice but to retake the United Kingdom’s Falkland Islands after they’d been stormed by Argentinean troops in 1982. Failure to do so would have made Britain’s first female prime minister look feeble and incompetent on matters of national defense, something no female leader can afford.
In addition to Thatcher, there are other previous female world leaders Hillary can study for tips on how to approach certain issues. Sarah Baxter, a writer for the Sunday Times of London, reports that Hillary only needs to review the life and times of Israel’s Golda Meir and India’s Indira Gandhi to find out tough she can be on national defense.
Meir, Baxter reports, “authorized the assassination of Palestinian terrorist leaders and the annexation of conquered lands, and she led Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war.” Ghandi led India during its war with Pakistan.
Iraq and Afghanistan?
Hillary will deny, on a large stake of Bibles, that she has anything in common with former President Richard Nixon. She was a staff attorney on the Senate committee investigating Nixon over Watergate in the 1970s.
But she’ll borrow from the Nixon playbook when it comes to Iraq. Nixon knew that the domestic political climate didn’t support continued U.S. involvement in Vietnam; but he equally knew that he couldn’t be the first president to lose a war. He was in a bind.
So he started bringing the troops home while, at the same time, ordering far more aggressive attacks on Communist forces in North Vietnam and in Cambodia. By doing so, he looked tough on Communism (something he was known for) while also acknowledging that it was time for the United States to end its involvement in Vietnam.
Hillary will likely do something similar. She doesn’t want the enemies of the United States and Iraq’s current government to succeed, and likely, neither does the average American voter. But she’ll need to strike a balance between domestic desires and the harsh reality of Iraq. It’s my guess that she’ll bring some of the troops home (a way to keep the Democrats appeased) while continuing some kind of U.S. military presence in Iraq.
Afghanistan is a different story. It’s essentially a NATO operation but there are also U.S. troops in Afghanistan that are not under NATO command. This allows the United States to work with NATO allies while, at the same time, giving it the flexibility to conduct operations that may be questioned by its allies.
The operation in Afghanistan basically hides behind the one in Iraq; it will likely remain that way during the Hillary Clinton presidency.
If any of America’s enemies, like North Korea, Iran or Venezuela, start saber-rattling, expect Hillary to deal with the issue forcefully and effectively.
The one thing that people will soon notice about Hillary is that she’ll have an easier time making a decision than her husband, especially on issues of national security.
Domestic Issues
Hillary’s domestic politics can be summed up in this manner – she’ll support traditional Democratic causes whenever possible, like unions, abortion rights, domestic partnerships, but, at the same time, she’ll make every attempt to keep herself in the center, so she’s appealing to moderately conservative voters.
So, she’ll support a woman’s right to choose an abortion while supporting legislation that makes adoption easier.
Hillary will probably not want to deal with gay marriage, but she’ll certainly support domestic partnerships, enhancing them wherever possible.
She’ll talk up her religious faith on the campaign trail, when necessary, and she may even be inclined to continue the President George W. Bush’s program to give government money to faith-based charities helping the poor and downtrodden.
Hillary will be as conniving and as crafty as her husband. But I expect her to be a much more formidable executive than her husband, too. Once she makes a decision, even if it is controversial, she’ll likely stick with it.
U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, (D-NY), evokes a visceral reaction among both her supporters and those who, without any diplomacy or tact, will tell anyone within listening distance that they hate her.
Since 1992, when she came onto the country’s national political scene, Hillary has been both a source of pride and contempt for the Democratic Party. She doesn’t play by the rules established for First Ladies, either current or former. And now, here she is, barely into her second term as a United States Senator, and she’s the one to beat for her party’s presidential nomination next year.
It’s just so unfair.
The only other First Ladies who were as close to being as controversial as Hillary include Rosaylnn Carter (she announced she’d join her husband for the Cabinet meetings); Betty Ford (she supported a woman’s right to choose); and Eleanor Roosevelt (who toured the country and stumped for her husband).
Had Senator Clinton been the traditional First Lady, her husband would remain in the spotlight – or in as much of the spotlight as former presidents receive – and she would confine herself to staying within his shadow.
But anyone who knows anything about Senator Clinton knows that’s not her style. She only retreats to lick her wounds and find another way to achieve victory.
During the 1992 presidential campaign, Hillary proudly announced that she didn’t stay home “and bake cookies.” While the comment may not have been intended as an insult to First Lady Barbara Bush, it certainly drew a distinction between the Baby Boomer and World War II generations.
(Bill Clinton was the first Baby Boomer to be elected President while George H.W. Bush was the last President to have served in the military during World War II.)
While her husband was Arkansas’ governor, Senator Clinton was a partner in the Rose Law Firm and, according to Wikipedia, she chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee, the Rural Health Advisory Committee; she also introduced, according to Wikipedia, the Arkansas Home Instructional Program for Preschool Youth, “which trains parents to work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy.”
The online encyclopedia also reports that the Senator was named Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983 and Arkansas Mother of the Year in 1984. Her business experience, during her Little Rock days, included serving on the Board of Directors of TCBY, The Country’s Best Yogurt, and Wal-Mart stores.
Shortly after her husband won the presidential election, she was appointed to lead the presidential task force investigating ways to change the nation’s healthcare system. The task force met privately, making it an easy target for Republicans, which later helped them take control of Congress during the 1994 midterm elections.
After the healthcare plan, one of the single largest controversies surrounding Senator Clinton was the way she handled herself during President Clinton’s impeachment and subsequent trial as well as the way she stood by him after it had been revealed that he’d had an affair – a sordid, quick fling is a better description – with a White House intern.
Monica Lewinsky wasn’t the President’s first mistress; during the presidential campaign in 1992, Bill Clinton admitted that he’d damaged their marriage, perhaps more than once; while in the White House, it was reported that he’d had at least one another dalliance.
The Senator had two ways to handle this affair: She could walk out on him, thereby making her the first First Lady to ever divorce and/or separate from her husband; or she could stand by him, the option she chose.
Hillary’s decision reveals a lot about her. She may not have exactly had her eyes on the Senate in 1998, when the affair with Monica was made public. At the same time, it cannot be simply dismissed that she was not planning her post-White House years either. She said, more than once, that Bill Clinton did his thing and she did hers.
While she may have forgiven the president for his transgression with Monica – we’ll never really know – it’s also equally possible that she figured that Bill Clinton’s former wife would never have as much political cache as his current wife. And that was likely one of the reasons she stood by him.
Hillary also saw in Bill Clinton something she needed – a masterful politician to guide her through the trials and tribulations that any national and state-wide politician encounters. He had an ability to confound the Republican majority in Congress and look better after every assault launched against him. She knew, especially when she decided to run for the Senate, that his advice, knowledge and experience would be required to win the campaign.
Losing the Senate seat to a relative unknown, like U.S. Rep. Rick Lazio, was simply not an option. She had to win, especially if she wanted any kind of political future that wouldn’t require her to play second fiddle to her husband.
For that matter, Bill Clinton equally knew that to place his legacy in good standing, Hillary had to win. A Hillary victory, to Bill Clinton, is spawning a politician in his own mold, and it keeps him in front of the American electorate.
As she shown already, Hillary will make sure that no one can “out-left” her. The primaries are a time when the party faithful vote, so Hillary will do whatever is necessary to show them that she’s the Democrat they want returned to The White House. Her husband will campaign for her, too.
She’ll beat Barack Obama for this simple reason – there are politicians that owe her favors. After eight years in The White House, and more than six years in the Senate, there are governors and members of Congress who owe her (and her husband) in a way that they don’t owe Senator Obama.
Senator Obama will get there, but it will take a few more years than he’d like. Who knows, there’s a good chance he could wind up as Hillary’s running mate.
After she sows up the nomination, Hillary, in an attempt to capture the votes of independents and dispirited Republicans, will move to the center – at least in her speeches. She’ll essentially tell America that she’s tough on defense and illegal immigration; supports adoption (along with a woman’s right to choose); likes hunters (but supports tough hand-gun legislation); is tough on crime; supports environmental causes; and will say that the world’s perception of America needs to be improved. She’ll dance around Iraq and Afghanistan. If necessary, she’ll talk about a time-line to bring the troops home.
All of that just might secure a White House victory. But, of course, any presidential campaign with Hillary leading the ticket contains a very possible, and very serious, vulnerability. It’s her husband.
A vote for Hillary, Republicans will say, is a vote for Bill. (In fact, you can expect the Republicans to make Hillary to look live the Devil.) The Republicans will say President Clinton left the country vulnerable to terrorism (He had a chance to kill Osama bin Laden while he was in The Sudan but failed to take it) and they’ll remind the country that the Clinton Administration was once charged with selling high-tech secrets to China. And let’s not forget the impeachment hearings.
If Hillary survives this assault – and the Republicans stumble – she’ll likely be elected.
What Kind of President will she be?
Gender will play a role in how Hillary conducts herself in office. It’ll force her to be harsher in some areas, like national defense, and softer in others, like families and children.
As the first woman to become president, Hillary will need to prove, more so than the average male president, not that she’s about to surrender the country and its interests to some of our toughest enemies, like North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.
(Hillary was recently asked in Iowa if she had any background in dealing with “evil” men. Some interpreted the way she asked the question as an acknowledgement of having dealt with her husband, which she’s since denied. Even if we accept her denial at face value, let’s face it, she’s dealt with a husband who’s admitted to being less than faithful to his marriage.)
Hillary’s gender will force her to act tough when it comes to foreign policy, much in the same way it forced former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s hand. She had no choice but to retake the United Kingdom’s Falkland Islands after they’d been stormed by Argentinean troops in 1982. Failure to do so would have made Britain’s first female prime minister look feeble and incompetent on matters of national defense, something no female leader can afford.
In addition to Thatcher, there are other previous female world leaders Hillary can study for tips on how to approach certain issues. Sarah Baxter, a writer for the Sunday Times of London, reports that Hillary only needs to review the life and times of Israel’s Golda Meir and India’s Indira Gandhi to find out tough she can be on national defense.
Meir, Baxter reports, “authorized the assassination of Palestinian terrorist leaders and the annexation of conquered lands, and she led Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war.” Ghandi led India during its war with Pakistan.
Iraq and Afghanistan?
Hillary will deny, on a large stake of Bibles, that she has anything in common with former President Richard Nixon. She was a staff attorney on the Senate committee investigating Nixon over Watergate in the 1970s.
But she’ll borrow from the Nixon playbook when it comes to Iraq. Nixon knew that the domestic political climate didn’t support continued U.S. involvement in Vietnam; but he equally knew that he couldn’t be the first president to lose a war. He was in a bind.
So he started bringing the troops home while, at the same time, ordering far more aggressive attacks on Communist forces in North Vietnam and in Cambodia. By doing so, he looked tough on Communism (something he was known for) while also acknowledging that it was time for the United States to end its involvement in Vietnam.
Hillary will likely do something similar. She doesn’t want the enemies of the United States and Iraq’s current government to succeed, and likely, neither does the average American voter. But she’ll need to strike a balance between domestic desires and the harsh reality of Iraq. It’s my guess that she’ll bring some of the troops home (a way to keep the Democrats appeased) while continuing some kind of U.S. military presence in Iraq.
Afghanistan is a different story. It’s essentially a NATO operation but there are also U.S. troops in Afghanistan that are not under NATO command. This allows the United States to work with NATO allies while, at the same time, giving it the flexibility to conduct operations that may be questioned by its allies.
The operation in Afghanistan basically hides behind the one in Iraq; it will likely remain that way during the Hillary Clinton presidency.
If any of America’s enemies, like North Korea, Iran or Venezuela, start saber-rattling, expect Hillary to deal with the issue forcefully and effectively.
The one thing that people will soon notice about Hillary is that she’ll have an easier time making a decision than her husband, especially on issues of national security.
Domestic Issues
Hillary’s domestic politics can be summed up in this manner – she’ll support traditional Democratic causes whenever possible, like unions, abortion rights, domestic partnerships, but, at the same time, she’ll make every attempt to keep herself in the center, so she’s appealing to moderately conservative voters.
So, she’ll support a woman’s right to choose an abortion while supporting legislation that makes adoption easier.
Hillary will probably not want to deal with gay marriage, but she’ll certainly support domestic partnerships, enhancing them wherever possible.
She’ll talk up her religious faith on the campaign trail, when necessary, and she may even be inclined to continue the President George W. Bush’s program to give government money to faith-based charities helping the poor and downtrodden.
Hillary will be as conniving and as crafty as her husband. But I expect her to be a much more formidable executive than her husband, too. Once she makes a decision, even if it is controversial, she’ll likely stick with it.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Jesus, Democrats and the price of victory
1. Iraq, the Democrats and possible outcomes
Twenty thousand additional U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq may very well not make much of a difference. But it’s something. It shows our allies and enemies that the United States is committed to the war’s successful outcome.
If the President takes up the Democrats on their suggestion and pulls out, Iraq goes to hell overnight. The Saudis, as was reported in The Wall Street Journal this week, will start funding the Sunni insurgency in Iraq; Jordan will move its troops far enough into Iraq to keep its border secure; Turkey will be forced to find a way to deal with the Kurds, people they don’t like.
And Iran, which is likely pushing ahead with its nuclear arms program, will be sitting in the cat’s seat.
There’s a good chance that Iraq will be the theatre of a proxy war between the Arab world and the Persians. And if that happens, civilian casualties in Iraq will skyrocket exponentially.
But they won’t be the only ones that are harmed.
Oil, the fundamental commodity of all western economies, will see an increase in price. Right now, it’s trading in the $55 range, good news for the developed world. But if there’s any fear in the oil markets, the price of a barrel of crude will increase. Maybe double in this scenario.
The economic fallout would be horrible. Gas prices will increase; airlines will raise their prices to keep up with additional fuel charges; and just about everything that anyone buys at the store will see a jump in prices.
Companies will layoff additional employees simply because they don’t want to pay the additional overhead expenses.
And the stock markets will likely take a turn for the worse.
Finally, the continued confrontations between the Palestinians, Israel, Syria and Lebanon will spiral out of control. Syria’s best friend is Iran; Iran will extract all kinds of promises from Syria in this scenario; that means the Palestinians and the terrorist group Hezbollah will be receiving even more assistance than they’re already receiving from Iran.
So before you add your voice to the antiwar chant, consider these possible outcomes if the United States pulls out.
2. The debate over Iraq
It’s time to have the proverbial “Come to Jesus Meeting” about Iraq. The citizens of the United States, those who vote and actually give a damn about the country, are owed far better than what they’re currently receiving from the politicians in Washington. The sound bites of “stay the course” or “pull out” just doesn’t cut the mustard.
Those lines are cheap. And it allows anyone, on either side of this debate, to take a pass at truly discussing, considering and thinking about what U.S. involvement in Iraq means, not only to us but also to the Iraqis.
It’s time for leading Congressional Democrats and Republicans, the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the National Security advisor, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and his top generals, as well as the Secretary of the Treasury to hole themselves up for a few days, maybe a week, in a place like Camp David, and hash out the issues.
And do so without issuing any press releases while they’re meeting. We need to force these people to devise a plan that meets the needs of everyone involved in Iraq. Maybe even those countries who have troops on the ground in Iraq, like Great Britain and Poland, should also join the meeting.
An American pullout doesn’t mean peace in Iraq; if anything, it means the exact opposite. More insurgents killing more people; and this time they’ll be funded by the treasury departments of Iran and some countries in the Arab world.
3. The All-Volunteer Force
If anything, President George W. Bush has proven the United States can wage a war with an all-volunteer force and, frankly, there won’t be too much resistance at home. To be cynical, those troops who’ve been killed in Iraq were, after all, volunteers.
Walk down any street America and you’ll never know that our sons and daughters are dying in central Asia or on a distant, dusty, Middle Eastern battlefield. You see the occasional flag but, otherwise, you’d never know there’s a war on.
Compare that with what happened during World War II, when houses posted star flags on their windows. If you posted a flag with one star, there was one member of your family in uniform. If you posted a flag with two stars, there were two members of your family serving, etc., etc.
The stars were silver. If that house changed their flag from a silver star to one that was gold, a member of that person’s family had been killed.
Since 9/11, I’ve only seen two silver star flags.
And this is the problem with an all-volunteer force. Only those Americans with a family member in the armed force are paying the price and feeling the pain of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan or anywhere else our troops are based.
If you’re in the peace movement, you want the draft reinstated. This might help you organize major marches across the United States on behalf of an American pull out.
If you’re for the war, you need to see the draft reinstated. It’s taken us nearly six years to increase the size of the active duty Army by 30,000; we simply need more troops on the ground in Iraq – like maybe a million – if we’re going to defeat the insurgents once and for all. We could probably say the same thing about our effort in Afghanistan.
The problem with the current size of the force in Iraq is that once we defeat the insurgents in one place, we need to move to another. And that allows the insurgency to reestablish its ties to the village or province we just secured. (Almost like Vietnam. But not quite.)
The U.S. Census Bureau reports that there are 63 million American men between the ages of 18 – 49.
Here’s an idea: Draft all men between the ages of 18 – 50, regardless of their marital status and whether or not they’re in college. The only way their names and numbers wouldn’t be subjected to the draft is if they’re veterans. Unlike the last time we used the draft, this version of conscription subjects everyone, regardless of their economic and educational status, to service in the armed forces.
The only way they would be allowed out of the military would be if they couldn’t pass the physical or basic training. If I had to guess, I’d say that half of all of those drafted will fail the physical and then another 50 percent will fail basic training. Still, that will give us about 16 million men in uniform, a number unseen since World War II.
Not everyone who is north of 35 or 40 will qualify for combat duty, but they should be able to contribute in some way to the well being of our forces.
A military force that consists of draftees will spread out the cost and the pain of Iraq and Afghanistan. And it will force all Americans to come to terms with Iraq.
In addition, a larger cross section of the country will be represented in this force. Instead of the force being made up of people who either 1) patriotic or 2) don't know what else to do, the force will be made up all kinds of Americans. This was the type of military that brought about victory in World War II.
A longstanding argument against the draft is that the military brass doesn’t want it, saying the average conscript isn’t a motivated solider. This same military brass considers itself to have some of the best leadership skills in the world. It’s time to put them to use. The best leaders motivate the worst performers.
Twenty thousand additional U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq may very well not make much of a difference. But it’s something. It shows our allies and enemies that the United States is committed to the war’s successful outcome.
If the President takes up the Democrats on their suggestion and pulls out, Iraq goes to hell overnight. The Saudis, as was reported in The Wall Street Journal this week, will start funding the Sunni insurgency in Iraq; Jordan will move its troops far enough into Iraq to keep its border secure; Turkey will be forced to find a way to deal with the Kurds, people they don’t like.
And Iran, which is likely pushing ahead with its nuclear arms program, will be sitting in the cat’s seat.
There’s a good chance that Iraq will be the theatre of a proxy war between the Arab world and the Persians. And if that happens, civilian casualties in Iraq will skyrocket exponentially.
But they won’t be the only ones that are harmed.
Oil, the fundamental commodity of all western economies, will see an increase in price. Right now, it’s trading in the $55 range, good news for the developed world. But if there’s any fear in the oil markets, the price of a barrel of crude will increase. Maybe double in this scenario.
The economic fallout would be horrible. Gas prices will increase; airlines will raise their prices to keep up with additional fuel charges; and just about everything that anyone buys at the store will see a jump in prices.
Companies will layoff additional employees simply because they don’t want to pay the additional overhead expenses.
And the stock markets will likely take a turn for the worse.
Finally, the continued confrontations between the Palestinians, Israel, Syria and Lebanon will spiral out of control. Syria’s best friend is Iran; Iran will extract all kinds of promises from Syria in this scenario; that means the Palestinians and the terrorist group Hezbollah will be receiving even more assistance than they’re already receiving from Iran.
So before you add your voice to the antiwar chant, consider these possible outcomes if the United States pulls out.
2. The debate over Iraq
It’s time to have the proverbial “Come to Jesus Meeting” about Iraq. The citizens of the United States, those who vote and actually give a damn about the country, are owed far better than what they’re currently receiving from the politicians in Washington. The sound bites of “stay the course” or “pull out” just doesn’t cut the mustard.
Those lines are cheap. And it allows anyone, on either side of this debate, to take a pass at truly discussing, considering and thinking about what U.S. involvement in Iraq means, not only to us but also to the Iraqis.
It’s time for leading Congressional Democrats and Republicans, the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the National Security advisor, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and his top generals, as well as the Secretary of the Treasury to hole themselves up for a few days, maybe a week, in a place like Camp David, and hash out the issues.
And do so without issuing any press releases while they’re meeting. We need to force these people to devise a plan that meets the needs of everyone involved in Iraq. Maybe even those countries who have troops on the ground in Iraq, like Great Britain and Poland, should also join the meeting.
An American pullout doesn’t mean peace in Iraq; if anything, it means the exact opposite. More insurgents killing more people; and this time they’ll be funded by the treasury departments of Iran and some countries in the Arab world.
3. The All-Volunteer Force
If anything, President George W. Bush has proven the United States can wage a war with an all-volunteer force and, frankly, there won’t be too much resistance at home. To be cynical, those troops who’ve been killed in Iraq were, after all, volunteers.
Walk down any street America and you’ll never know that our sons and daughters are dying in central Asia or on a distant, dusty, Middle Eastern battlefield. You see the occasional flag but, otherwise, you’d never know there’s a war on.
Compare that with what happened during World War II, when houses posted star flags on their windows. If you posted a flag with one star, there was one member of your family in uniform. If you posted a flag with two stars, there were two members of your family serving, etc., etc.
The stars were silver. If that house changed their flag from a silver star to one that was gold, a member of that person’s family had been killed.
Since 9/11, I’ve only seen two silver star flags.
And this is the problem with an all-volunteer force. Only those Americans with a family member in the armed force are paying the price and feeling the pain of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan or anywhere else our troops are based.
If you’re in the peace movement, you want the draft reinstated. This might help you organize major marches across the United States on behalf of an American pull out.
If you’re for the war, you need to see the draft reinstated. It’s taken us nearly six years to increase the size of the active duty Army by 30,000; we simply need more troops on the ground in Iraq – like maybe a million – if we’re going to defeat the insurgents once and for all. We could probably say the same thing about our effort in Afghanistan.
The problem with the current size of the force in Iraq is that once we defeat the insurgents in one place, we need to move to another. And that allows the insurgency to reestablish its ties to the village or province we just secured. (Almost like Vietnam. But not quite.)
The U.S. Census Bureau reports that there are 63 million American men between the ages of 18 – 49.
Here’s an idea: Draft all men between the ages of 18 – 50, regardless of their marital status and whether or not they’re in college. The only way their names and numbers wouldn’t be subjected to the draft is if they’re veterans. Unlike the last time we used the draft, this version of conscription subjects everyone, regardless of their economic and educational status, to service in the armed forces.
The only way they would be allowed out of the military would be if they couldn’t pass the physical or basic training. If I had to guess, I’d say that half of all of those drafted will fail the physical and then another 50 percent will fail basic training. Still, that will give us about 16 million men in uniform, a number unseen since World War II.
Not everyone who is north of 35 or 40 will qualify for combat duty, but they should be able to contribute in some way to the well being of our forces.
A military force that consists of draftees will spread out the cost and the pain of Iraq and Afghanistan. And it will force all Americans to come to terms with Iraq.
In addition, a larger cross section of the country will be represented in this force. Instead of the force being made up of people who either 1) patriotic or 2) don't know what else to do, the force will be made up all kinds of Americans. This was the type of military that brought about victory in World War II.
A longstanding argument against the draft is that the military brass doesn’t want it, saying the average conscript isn’t a motivated solider. This same military brass considers itself to have some of the best leadership skills in the world. It’s time to put them to use. The best leaders motivate the worst performers.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Notes on President Ford, Vietnam and Iraq
Writer’s note: It’s been a while since I’ve updated this blog. So here are some thoughts on recent events and issues that continue to be discussed in the media.
1. The passing of former President Gerald R. Ford
In the early 1960s, my dad was a young reporter for United Press International in Grand Rapids, Michigan, home of Michigan’s Fifth Congressional district. Congressman Jerry Ford dropped by the office one day to take him and another reporter, from the Detroit Free Press, to lunch. They talked politics and Michigan football, and dad never forgot Congressman Ford’s generosity that day, describing him as one of the most decent men he’d ever met.
Advance 14 years and Ford is the President of the United States and my dad, by then, is UPI’s vice president and general manager.
Business took dad to Washington where he had dinner with a former UPI photographer, the Pulitzer Prize-winning David Hume Kennerly, who, by that time, was President Ford’s official White House Photographer, and Dick Growald, who covered The White House, in tandem, with Helen Thomas, for UPI. Kennerly suggested to dad that he come by The White House the next morning so he could see his office.
Although he didn’t have much of an interest in photography, a visit to The White House, even if was the photographer’s office, had some appeal. Dad arrives and Kennerly suddenly announced that they’re going to say, “Hello.”
Dad inquired, “To Whom?”
The next thing he knew, he was being led into the Oval Office and there was President Ford sitting behind his desk. He stood up and greeted dad as if they were old friends.
Ford spent about 30 minutes that day with my dad, Growald and a White House spokesman. And Kennerly photographed all of it. In fact, I have a picture of the meeting and plan to bequeath it to my children.
Ford couldn’t have been nicer, dad always said. Obviously, the President had been briefed on my dad, so he was aware that they shared a connection to Grand Rapids.
Dad was on Cloud 9. He told us all about his meeting with the President and showed us the pictures.
As a result, I’ve always held the late president in high esteem. Although I was only 14 at the time, I had hoped Ford would be elected president in 1976. And, given the times that Jimmy Carter experienced, I believe Ford would have handled many of the same events between 1977 and 1981, especially the U.S. hostage crisis in Tehran, far better than his successor.
RIP, Mr. President.
2. Gerald R. Ford as President of the United States
Ford was always my kind of Republican. As The New York Times recently said, he was the kind of politician who wanted the government “out of your bedroom, living room and the board room.”
I’m not sure about the last one but that has nothing to do with Jerry Ford. No one in the 1970s could have predicted all of the corporate transgressions we’ve witnessed in the past five years.
After Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson, two men who were prone to professional and personal antics that degraded the Presidency, Ford was clean. Very clean. And he was a steady hand at the helm of a ship that was passing through turbulent waters.
It’s easy to dismiss someone like Ford as an Accidental President. But at the time he came into office, the country needed someone like him, someone who could put the country at ease after the trials and tribulations of Watergate and Vietnam. The nation should be grateful that he successfully moved the country beyond these two debacles.
A number of the obituaries and tributes credit Ford with removing the United States from Vietnam. While some of that is true, it’s important to remember that U.S. troops started returning from Vietnam during the Nixon Administration. In fact, like it or not, Richard Nixon and his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, had more to do with ending U.S. involvement in Vietnam than President Ford.
By the time Ford became President, U.S. plans for Vietnam had been set. We’d signed a peace accord, of sorts, with the North Vietnamese in Paris in 1973, about 18 months before Ford became president. It released U.S. servicemen captured by North Vietnam and committed the United States to withdrawing from South Vietnam.
By the time Communist troops were bearing down on Saigon in April 1975, Ford had few options. As Commander-in-Chief, he could have cited national security concerns, and ordered bombing raids against Hanoi and other parts of North Vietnam in an attempt to force a stalemate.
But, by that time, that action was going to spend more political capital than the President likely wanted and maybe even had. In addition, it’s difficult to say how effective bombing raids would have been since the North Vietnamese had proven that they accepted heavy casualties.
Under no circumstance was Ford going to reintroduce U.S. ground troops to prop up the Saigon government. There was not a scintilla of political support for such action.
Probably the single best thing Ford did was assure the nation that the loss of South Vietnam to the Communists was not a ringing of the death knell for the United States as a superpower. As tragic as it was, Saigon’s fall allowed the United States to focus on more pressing international issues, like the Soviet Union, China and the Middle East.
Ford went on to score three significant victories with each one. He forced the Soviets to recognize human rights; he kept the Chinese engaged with the United States; and, finally, he was able to gain acceptance of a truce between Israel and Egypt.
Ford’s pardon of President Nixon will be debated by historians for adinfinitum. A case for either action – pardon or no pardon – can be made without too much difficulty. By pardoning Nixon, Ford put Watergate behind us just as, in the same way, by letting Saigon fall to Hanoi, he put the war behind us.
3. Iraq
It’s time to dust off our history books. Iraq is no Vietnam. Today, the United States is fighting an insurgency supported by terrorist networks likely coming from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Iran as well as what’s homegrown in Iraq. They may be coming from other countries, but those are the ones we know about.
At least we knew our enemy during the Vietnam War. It was the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong and they were primarily supported by the Soviet Union and, to a much lesser degree, the Peoples Republic of China. This makes the Vietnam War look much easier to manage than the current one in Iraq.
While the United States has been somewhat successful in separating Iraqi insurgents from foreign insurgents – namely those supported by Al Qaida – we’re not dealing with another nation. Instead, we’re dealing with mercenaries or freelancers who give every appearance of being willing to pay a high price for their cause – preventing the United States and its Iraqi allies from letting Iraq turn into a failed state – and who report to no one.
One of the big differences between our enemies in Iraq and us is the fact that they report to no one. Certainly there’s no leader of the insurgency who is held accountable politically or publicly. The insurgency, wherever it comes from, can afford high casualties and military blunders.
But the lessons of Vietnam should not be dismissed. President Nixon violated a basic lesson of negotiation when he started talking with Hanoi. As the talks were getting underway, Nixon announced he was bringing the troops home, thereby immediately weakening our position.
The North Vietnamese knew, from that point on, that it was just a matter of time before the United States ended its commitments to the government in Saigon. All Hanoi had to do was pay lip service to the negotiations while they continued to fight the war on their terms.
The newly minted Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and her Democratic colleagues, as well as a few Republicans, might review the actions taken by the Nixon Administration. If they really want the United States to fail in Iraq, all they need to do is keep pressing George W. Bush for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
If Bush caves to the pressure, and starts bringing the troops home, this will signal to the insurgents – as well as to everyone else – that it’s just a matter of time before the United States stops supporting the government in Baghdad.
Speaker Pelosi and her allies on Capitol Hill might consider what Iraq will look like if the United States pulls out. And they might also consider how such actions will be perceived by both our allies and anyone else who considers the United States its enemy.
1. The passing of former President Gerald R. Ford
In the early 1960s, my dad was a young reporter for United Press International in Grand Rapids, Michigan, home of Michigan’s Fifth Congressional district. Congressman Jerry Ford dropped by the office one day to take him and another reporter, from the Detroit Free Press, to lunch. They talked politics and Michigan football, and dad never forgot Congressman Ford’s generosity that day, describing him as one of the most decent men he’d ever met.
Advance 14 years and Ford is the President of the United States and my dad, by then, is UPI’s vice president and general manager.
Business took dad to Washington where he had dinner with a former UPI photographer, the Pulitzer Prize-winning David Hume Kennerly, who, by that time, was President Ford’s official White House Photographer, and Dick Growald, who covered The White House, in tandem, with Helen Thomas, for UPI. Kennerly suggested to dad that he come by The White House the next morning so he could see his office.
Although he didn’t have much of an interest in photography, a visit to The White House, even if was the photographer’s office, had some appeal. Dad arrives and Kennerly suddenly announced that they’re going to say, “Hello.”
Dad inquired, “To Whom?”
The next thing he knew, he was being led into the Oval Office and there was President Ford sitting behind his desk. He stood up and greeted dad as if they were old friends.
Ford spent about 30 minutes that day with my dad, Growald and a White House spokesman. And Kennerly photographed all of it. In fact, I have a picture of the meeting and plan to bequeath it to my children.
Ford couldn’t have been nicer, dad always said. Obviously, the President had been briefed on my dad, so he was aware that they shared a connection to Grand Rapids.
Dad was on Cloud 9. He told us all about his meeting with the President and showed us the pictures.
As a result, I’ve always held the late president in high esteem. Although I was only 14 at the time, I had hoped Ford would be elected president in 1976. And, given the times that Jimmy Carter experienced, I believe Ford would have handled many of the same events between 1977 and 1981, especially the U.S. hostage crisis in Tehran, far better than his successor.
RIP, Mr. President.
2. Gerald R. Ford as President of the United States
Ford was always my kind of Republican. As The New York Times recently said, he was the kind of politician who wanted the government “out of your bedroom, living room and the board room.”
I’m not sure about the last one but that has nothing to do with Jerry Ford. No one in the 1970s could have predicted all of the corporate transgressions we’ve witnessed in the past five years.
After Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson, two men who were prone to professional and personal antics that degraded the Presidency, Ford was clean. Very clean. And he was a steady hand at the helm of a ship that was passing through turbulent waters.
It’s easy to dismiss someone like Ford as an Accidental President. But at the time he came into office, the country needed someone like him, someone who could put the country at ease after the trials and tribulations of Watergate and Vietnam. The nation should be grateful that he successfully moved the country beyond these two debacles.
A number of the obituaries and tributes credit Ford with removing the United States from Vietnam. While some of that is true, it’s important to remember that U.S. troops started returning from Vietnam during the Nixon Administration. In fact, like it or not, Richard Nixon and his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, had more to do with ending U.S. involvement in Vietnam than President Ford.
By the time Ford became President, U.S. plans for Vietnam had been set. We’d signed a peace accord, of sorts, with the North Vietnamese in Paris in 1973, about 18 months before Ford became president. It released U.S. servicemen captured by North Vietnam and committed the United States to withdrawing from South Vietnam.
By the time Communist troops were bearing down on Saigon in April 1975, Ford had few options. As Commander-in-Chief, he could have cited national security concerns, and ordered bombing raids against Hanoi and other parts of North Vietnam in an attempt to force a stalemate.
But, by that time, that action was going to spend more political capital than the President likely wanted and maybe even had. In addition, it’s difficult to say how effective bombing raids would have been since the North Vietnamese had proven that they accepted heavy casualties.
Under no circumstance was Ford going to reintroduce U.S. ground troops to prop up the Saigon government. There was not a scintilla of political support for such action.
Probably the single best thing Ford did was assure the nation that the loss of South Vietnam to the Communists was not a ringing of the death knell for the United States as a superpower. As tragic as it was, Saigon’s fall allowed the United States to focus on more pressing international issues, like the Soviet Union, China and the Middle East.
Ford went on to score three significant victories with each one. He forced the Soviets to recognize human rights; he kept the Chinese engaged with the United States; and, finally, he was able to gain acceptance of a truce between Israel and Egypt.
Ford’s pardon of President Nixon will be debated by historians for adinfinitum. A case for either action – pardon or no pardon – can be made without too much difficulty. By pardoning Nixon, Ford put Watergate behind us just as, in the same way, by letting Saigon fall to Hanoi, he put the war behind us.
3. Iraq
It’s time to dust off our history books. Iraq is no Vietnam. Today, the United States is fighting an insurgency supported by terrorist networks likely coming from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Iran as well as what’s homegrown in Iraq. They may be coming from other countries, but those are the ones we know about.
At least we knew our enemy during the Vietnam War. It was the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong and they were primarily supported by the Soviet Union and, to a much lesser degree, the Peoples Republic of China. This makes the Vietnam War look much easier to manage than the current one in Iraq.
While the United States has been somewhat successful in separating Iraqi insurgents from foreign insurgents – namely those supported by Al Qaida – we’re not dealing with another nation. Instead, we’re dealing with mercenaries or freelancers who give every appearance of being willing to pay a high price for their cause – preventing the United States and its Iraqi allies from letting Iraq turn into a failed state – and who report to no one.
One of the big differences between our enemies in Iraq and us is the fact that they report to no one. Certainly there’s no leader of the insurgency who is held accountable politically or publicly. The insurgency, wherever it comes from, can afford high casualties and military blunders.
But the lessons of Vietnam should not be dismissed. President Nixon violated a basic lesson of negotiation when he started talking with Hanoi. As the talks were getting underway, Nixon announced he was bringing the troops home, thereby immediately weakening our position.
The North Vietnamese knew, from that point on, that it was just a matter of time before the United States ended its commitments to the government in Saigon. All Hanoi had to do was pay lip service to the negotiations while they continued to fight the war on their terms.
The newly minted Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and her Democratic colleagues, as well as a few Republicans, might review the actions taken by the Nixon Administration. If they really want the United States to fail in Iraq, all they need to do is keep pressing George W. Bush for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
If Bush caves to the pressure, and starts bringing the troops home, this will signal to the insurgents – as well as to everyone else – that it’s just a matter of time before the United States stops supporting the government in Baghdad.
Speaker Pelosi and her allies on Capitol Hill might consider what Iraq will look like if the United States pulls out. And they might also consider how such actions will be perceived by both our allies and anyone else who considers the United States its enemy.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Ridding society of its unwanted citizens
A society ridding itself of its unwanted citizens is nothing new. In the western world, this idea first surfaced during the last years of Queen Elizabeth I’s reign, either the late 16th or early 17th century.
This was a time, Alden Vaughn writes, when England was undergoing tremendous change, really an upheaval. It was transitioning from being an agrarian economy to one based on industry. In many ways, during Elizabeth I’s reign, England entered the beginnings of the modern world.
The country's small farms crumbled, depression gripped the economy, and the population increased. It created, Vaughn writes, “the honest poor” who could not find work and “the willful poor” who turned to crime to survive.
The problem became so large that the ruling classes, and those who influenced them, began to feel imperiled, saying these two types of people were “threatening the purity and orderliness of English society.”
London “attracted the dispossessed” and they inhabited the city’s pubs, where they cursed English society and complained about the cards they’d been dealt. It’s likely they were too drunk to lead any armed rebellions but they were likely considered an unsightly lot, especially by those higher up the economic ladder.
There were no government programs to help the poor, and there was very little, if any, charity.
But there was a need for a solution to England’s problems. And, the ruling classes began to think, it was to be found in America, or the New World.
As England’s ruling classes viewed the world, “God had ordered man to multiply and fill the earth, and the New World appeared to Englishmen a vast, empty continent,” and, therefore, a remedy. In essence, it was a place to dispose of England’s unwanted, unproductive, uneducated yet Christian citizens.
The only people living in the New World, as the English rulers saw it, were a few natives. But they were considered heathens, Vaughn writes, and, therefore, needed Christian neighbors so they could enter God’s Kingdom.
As the nobles saw it, placing Englishmen, even if they were the dispossessed, in the New World was not an invasion of a sovereign nation but an attempt at peaceful colonization; and the colony’s mission was to Christianize the natives as well as a means to keep England’s dispossessed busy and productive.
Not much has changed
According to Victor Davis Hanson, in his book Mexifornia, the same thing is happening in Mexico. The country’s leaders, he writes, see the United States as a dumping ground for their unwanted citizens.
There’s no motivation for Mexico to stop its citizens from illegally immigrating into the United States. In fact, if anything, there’s every motivation for them to allow them out, so they become someone else’s problem, namely ours.
While he doesn’t quite ask the question, Hanson wonders what domestic American politics would look like if our poor and underemployed were crossing the border in droves into Canada. What would the Canadians do? And how would our leaders react to this situation?
Mexico, as far as Hanson is concerned, wants its poor and undereducated citizens out. Every citizen who leaves Mexico is one less problem for the government.
In fact, Hanson writes, Mexico is motivated to let its citizens leave its borders illegally because it’s a way to undo the results of the Mexican-American war, which gave the United States California and large swaths of the southwest.
Illegal immigrants from Mexico are also, in some ways, a solution to Mexico’s poor, Hanson writes.
This was a time, Alden Vaughn writes, when England was undergoing tremendous change, really an upheaval. It was transitioning from being an agrarian economy to one based on industry. In many ways, during Elizabeth I’s reign, England entered the beginnings of the modern world.
The country's small farms crumbled, depression gripped the economy, and the population increased. It created, Vaughn writes, “the honest poor” who could not find work and “the willful poor” who turned to crime to survive.
The problem became so large that the ruling classes, and those who influenced them, began to feel imperiled, saying these two types of people were “threatening the purity and orderliness of English society.”
London “attracted the dispossessed” and they inhabited the city’s pubs, where they cursed English society and complained about the cards they’d been dealt. It’s likely they were too drunk to lead any armed rebellions but they were likely considered an unsightly lot, especially by those higher up the economic ladder.
There were no government programs to help the poor, and there was very little, if any, charity.
But there was a need for a solution to England’s problems. And, the ruling classes began to think, it was to be found in America, or the New World.
As England’s ruling classes viewed the world, “God had ordered man to multiply and fill the earth, and the New World appeared to Englishmen a vast, empty continent,” and, therefore, a remedy. In essence, it was a place to dispose of England’s unwanted, unproductive, uneducated yet Christian citizens.
The only people living in the New World, as the English rulers saw it, were a few natives. But they were considered heathens, Vaughn writes, and, therefore, needed Christian neighbors so they could enter God’s Kingdom.
As the nobles saw it, placing Englishmen, even if they were the dispossessed, in the New World was not an invasion of a sovereign nation but an attempt at peaceful colonization; and the colony’s mission was to Christianize the natives as well as a means to keep England’s dispossessed busy and productive.
Not much has changed
According to Victor Davis Hanson, in his book Mexifornia, the same thing is happening in Mexico. The country’s leaders, he writes, see the United States as a dumping ground for their unwanted citizens.
There’s no motivation for Mexico to stop its citizens from illegally immigrating into the United States. In fact, if anything, there’s every motivation for them to allow them out, so they become someone else’s problem, namely ours.
While he doesn’t quite ask the question, Hanson wonders what domestic American politics would look like if our poor and underemployed were crossing the border in droves into Canada. What would the Canadians do? And how would our leaders react to this situation?
Mexico, as far as Hanson is concerned, wants its poor and undereducated citizens out. Every citizen who leaves Mexico is one less problem for the government.
In fact, Hanson writes, Mexico is motivated to let its citizens leave its borders illegally because it’s a way to undo the results of the Mexican-American war, which gave the United States California and large swaths of the southwest.
Illegal immigrants from Mexico are also, in some ways, a solution to Mexico’s poor, Hanson writes.
They send money back to their relatives and friends in Mexico. And Mexico’s citizens, living in the United States, Hanson writes, give the country “leverage in its relationship with the United States, which involves billion-dollar loan guarantees and the creation of free-trade leagues.”
Hanson writes that he’s talked about this problem with Mexico City’s elite “who privately laugh that they’re exporting their Indians and … their unwanted, into the United States.” Hanson tells them their riffraff are likely the same kind of riffraff that made the United States a great country.
“So while the powers in Mexico City regard departure (illegal immigration) as good politics – a valve of sorts that releases dangerous pressures rather than allow explosions of the type that occurred in the country’s earlier checkered history – in an odd way the joke ultimately is on them. Within twenty years the poor, brown Indian alien could enjoy a material existence in America superior to that of the upper-class white Mexican in Mexico City.”
-----------
Your correspondent hopes you’ll accept his apology for not updating this blog lately. The holiday season, along with a few other duties, prevented him from updating this blog as much as he would like. Thank you for your understanding.
Hanson writes that he’s talked about this problem with Mexico City’s elite “who privately laugh that they’re exporting their Indians and … their unwanted, into the United States.” Hanson tells them their riffraff are likely the same kind of riffraff that made the United States a great country.
“So while the powers in Mexico City regard departure (illegal immigration) as good politics – a valve of sorts that releases dangerous pressures rather than allow explosions of the type that occurred in the country’s earlier checkered history – in an odd way the joke ultimately is on them. Within twenty years the poor, brown Indian alien could enjoy a material existence in America superior to that of the upper-class white Mexican in Mexico City.”
-----------
Your correspondent hopes you’ll accept his apology for not updating this blog lately. The holiday season, along with a few other duties, prevented him from updating this blog as much as he would like. Thank you for your understanding.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Thanksgiving and America's early Puritans
We’re all political beings. It doesn’t matter if we’re an elected official or making our way through life far away from any legislative body. We’re more likely to make certain statements and take certain actions that will extend our influence, keep doors open, and give us future opportunities, than we are to acerbate anyone. Of course, there are always those exceptions but, more often than not, we want to get along with as many people as possible, even those we don’t know.
The Pilgrims, on that first Thanksgiving, were doing the same thing. Not only were they thanking God for seeing them through a brutal first year – about 50 of the original 100 settlers died during the first year – in the New World but they were also playing politics with the area’s indigenous people.
To survive, writes Nathaniel Philbrick in his new book, “Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War,” required a lot of help from the Pokanokets, one of New England’s native tribes. Their leader, Massasoit, decided his people should assist the Pilgrims and, while attending that first Thanksgiving, “could only hope that the Pilgrims would continue to honor their debt” to his people “long after the English settlement had grown into maturity.”
Of course, that first Thanksgiving wasn’t called Thanksgiving. To the Puritans, a true thanksgiving was very much a religious affair, “a time of spiritual devotion,” writes Philbrick.
This first Thanksgiving was more akin to an English custom that celebrated the fall harvest, writes Philbrick, “a secular celebration that dated back to the Middle Ages which villagers ate, drank, and played games.” William Bradford, the colony’s leader, ordered his men to kill ducks and geese; earlier, they had harvested their crop of corn, squash, beans, barley and peas. Massasoit and 100 of his people arrived with five deer they’d just killed.
The Pilgrims, while in some ways a stubborn people, were better diplomats than others who had previously surveyed and landed on the Massachusetts shore. They’d accepted the help from the natives and made it point to get along with them. There were a number of native tribes in the area but they got along best with the Pokanokets.
Nothing happens in a vacuum and the Pilgrims just didn’t show up on the Massachusetts shore. They were extreme Puritans who felt persecuted by the English establishment; wanted the Church of England cleansed, as they saw it, from all of its impurities; feared that England would revert back to Catholicism; and weren’t all that sure that the monarchy and the parliament were serving England well.
As life went in the 1600s, they were extremists. They separated themselves from civilization to create Heaven on earth. In fact, prior to their arrival in Massachusetts they’d spent 11 years in Holland because it was much more welcoming to the Protestant cause. And in spite of all of their concerns about England, the Pilgrims never stopped being English. They never saw themselves as immigrants to Holland and, for that matter, they weren’t about to take up arms against England.
By today’s standards, the Pilgrims don’t look at all like radicals. They were cultural conservatives: They were devout, disciplined, believed in marriage, condemned adultery, disdained public drunkenness, and educated their young (boys).
The Puritans didn’t have any issues with sex. This is a modern day misunderstanding. While the Puritans certainly wouldn’t approve of pornography, they believed that sex was a gift from God and was a means of showing love to their spouse.
King James and the government were prepared to let the Puritans immigrate because it was an easy way, nearly cost free, of letting people they didn’t particularly like leave the country. If they survived, wonderful. Then England would lay claim to the lands they were occupying in the New World. If they died, their problems were gone.
In many ways, the Puritans are responsible for what Americans have become. The notion of the “Protestant work ethic” comes from them because they didn’t believe in idleness. This made them that much more productive. Their worries about the Church of England and the government of England gave rise to the notion, now a Constitutional amendment, of the separation of Church and State; it also caused them to question whether governments had too much power.
Given their background of having lived in Holland, these early settlers were much more successful in their first year, in spite of all of their problems, than their fellow colonists in Jamestown, because they had experience living in a land that wasn’t familiar to them. Finally, they got along with the natives because they knew they needed them.
One of the biggest differences between the two colonies was that Plymouth Rock was settled by families. Jamestown was settled only by men. This likely made the Pilgrim men work that much harder to ensure the colony’s survival. One of the issues the leaders of Jamestown had was constantly reminding the colonists what needed to be done. It was akin to managing a group of free agents.
The reason we celebrate Thanksgiving these days has nothing to do with the Puritans who came ashore back in 1620. While we reference them through popular literature and crass commercialization, Thanksgiving has more to do with the Civil War than anything else. Abraham Lincoln was looking for a way celebrate the country and established, through a proclomation, that the United States should celebrate a Thanksgiving holiday.
So if you’re prone to giving a toast or saying a prayer before eating Thanksgiving, make it a point to honor the Puritans this year. Their worries and concerns about government and religion would eventually be transferred to the people who would lead the American Revolution and then write the Constitution. They were a brave people prepared to give up everything so they could live as they felt was right. Would you make the same sacrifice?
The Pilgrims, on that first Thanksgiving, were doing the same thing. Not only were they thanking God for seeing them through a brutal first year – about 50 of the original 100 settlers died during the first year – in the New World but they were also playing politics with the area’s indigenous people.
To survive, writes Nathaniel Philbrick in his new book, “Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War,” required a lot of help from the Pokanokets, one of New England’s native tribes. Their leader, Massasoit, decided his people should assist the Pilgrims and, while attending that first Thanksgiving, “could only hope that the Pilgrims would continue to honor their debt” to his people “long after the English settlement had grown into maturity.”
Of course, that first Thanksgiving wasn’t called Thanksgiving. To the Puritans, a true thanksgiving was very much a religious affair, “a time of spiritual devotion,” writes Philbrick.
This first Thanksgiving was more akin to an English custom that celebrated the fall harvest, writes Philbrick, “a secular celebration that dated back to the Middle Ages which villagers ate, drank, and played games.” William Bradford, the colony’s leader, ordered his men to kill ducks and geese; earlier, they had harvested their crop of corn, squash, beans, barley and peas. Massasoit and 100 of his people arrived with five deer they’d just killed.
The Pilgrims, while in some ways a stubborn people, were better diplomats than others who had previously surveyed and landed on the Massachusetts shore. They’d accepted the help from the natives and made it point to get along with them. There were a number of native tribes in the area but they got along best with the Pokanokets.
Nothing happens in a vacuum and the Pilgrims just didn’t show up on the Massachusetts shore. They were extreme Puritans who felt persecuted by the English establishment; wanted the Church of England cleansed, as they saw it, from all of its impurities; feared that England would revert back to Catholicism; and weren’t all that sure that the monarchy and the parliament were serving England well.
As life went in the 1600s, they were extremists. They separated themselves from civilization to create Heaven on earth. In fact, prior to their arrival in Massachusetts they’d spent 11 years in Holland because it was much more welcoming to the Protestant cause. And in spite of all of their concerns about England, the Pilgrims never stopped being English. They never saw themselves as immigrants to Holland and, for that matter, they weren’t about to take up arms against England.
By today’s standards, the Pilgrims don’t look at all like radicals. They were cultural conservatives: They were devout, disciplined, believed in marriage, condemned adultery, disdained public drunkenness, and educated their young (boys).
The Puritans didn’t have any issues with sex. This is a modern day misunderstanding. While the Puritans certainly wouldn’t approve of pornography, they believed that sex was a gift from God and was a means of showing love to their spouse.
King James and the government were prepared to let the Puritans immigrate because it was an easy way, nearly cost free, of letting people they didn’t particularly like leave the country. If they survived, wonderful. Then England would lay claim to the lands they were occupying in the New World. If they died, their problems were gone.
In many ways, the Puritans are responsible for what Americans have become. The notion of the “Protestant work ethic” comes from them because they didn’t believe in idleness. This made them that much more productive. Their worries about the Church of England and the government of England gave rise to the notion, now a Constitutional amendment, of the separation of Church and State; it also caused them to question whether governments had too much power.
Given their background of having lived in Holland, these early settlers were much more successful in their first year, in spite of all of their problems, than their fellow colonists in Jamestown, because they had experience living in a land that wasn’t familiar to them. Finally, they got along with the natives because they knew they needed them.
One of the biggest differences between the two colonies was that Plymouth Rock was settled by families. Jamestown was settled only by men. This likely made the Pilgrim men work that much harder to ensure the colony’s survival. One of the issues the leaders of Jamestown had was constantly reminding the colonists what needed to be done. It was akin to managing a group of free agents.
The reason we celebrate Thanksgiving these days has nothing to do with the Puritans who came ashore back in 1620. While we reference them through popular literature and crass commercialization, Thanksgiving has more to do with the Civil War than anything else. Abraham Lincoln was looking for a way celebrate the country and established, through a proclomation, that the United States should celebrate a Thanksgiving holiday.
So if you’re prone to giving a toast or saying a prayer before eating Thanksgiving, make it a point to honor the Puritans this year. Their worries and concerns about government and religion would eventually be transferred to the people who would lead the American Revolution and then write the Constitution. They were a brave people prepared to give up everything so they could live as they felt was right. Would you make the same sacrifice?
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Friday, November 10, 2006
The Donald: Rumsfeld & his way of thinking
Like a lot of people in the media and in government, I’ve shaken hands with Donald Rumsfeld, the departing secretary of defense.
He was on the board of directors of Tribune Company in the mid-90s, while I worked there, and the one thing that the higher ups always said about Rumsfeld is that he wasn’t likeable.
He asked a lot of questions that the senior executives didn’t want to answer. He challenged their assumptions and that made them uncomfortable.
But Rumsfeld took his job as a board member seriously. In fact, looking back on it now, Rumsfeld was ahead of his time as a board member.
Given all the corporate scandals that have been uncovered and adjudicated recently – Enron, WorldCom, Tyco – anyone who sits on the board of directors of a publicly held company knows that they’re going to be held far more accountable for their actions today than they were 10 years ago.
Rumsfeld knew that 10 years ago.
He made it a point, through his questions, to understand the plans and the marketplace. He likely signed off on a lot of actions that Tribune executives went on to execute but that didn’t stop him from gaining as much of an understanding as possible of these plans during a board meeting.
There’s likely no bureaucracy in Washington that’s more set in its ways than the Defense Department. Generals and admirals are often accused of using obsolete strategy and tactics to fight the war effort they’re leading.
Rumsfeld challenged his subordinates to think differently about how they’d fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. More than one senior officer likely didn’t appreciate these questions. They probably would have preferred a defense secretary that would rubber stamp their war plans.
That’s not Rumsfeld. He doesn’t rubber stamp anything.
The results in Afghanistan were startling. The United States was the first western army to conquer Afghanistan. Compare that to the British, who lost an entire army in Afghanistan in the 19th century and, later, the Soviet Union, which decided they couldn’t successfully occupy or pacify the country.
There are a lot of questions that need to be resolved about Afghanistan. But the victory orchestrated by Rumsfeld can’t be dismissed.
The same is true with the Iraq War of 2003. The basic tenants of the plan weren’t all that new – the British basically went in the same way in the early 20th century – but the results were no less outstanding. Even military historian John Keegan confirmed that.
The mistake that Rumsfeld made in Iraq was not planning for the postwar occupation. There’s every reason to believe that he never thought about an insurgency.
Still, in the course of executing these war plans, Rumsfeld forced the generals and the admirals to think about fighting wars far differently. For some of them, it was probably the biggest challenge they’d had since they attained their high ranks.
Some of the thinking that Rumsfeld instilled in his officers will likely remain around for decades, and, yes, it could, one day, be criticized as being obsolete.
Perhaps had Rumsfeld come across as a nicer man he wouldn’t have been forced out of his job. We’ll never know. And, yes, Rumsfeld does deserve a lot of the criticism he’s received. Even he would admit that.
And while I’m sure Robert Gates, the defense secretary-designate, is a capable executive, I wonder if he’ll bring the same level of intellectual energy to the job as his predecessor.
He was on the board of directors of Tribune Company in the mid-90s, while I worked there, and the one thing that the higher ups always said about Rumsfeld is that he wasn’t likeable.
He asked a lot of questions that the senior executives didn’t want to answer. He challenged their assumptions and that made them uncomfortable.
But Rumsfeld took his job as a board member seriously. In fact, looking back on it now, Rumsfeld was ahead of his time as a board member.
Given all the corporate scandals that have been uncovered and adjudicated recently – Enron, WorldCom, Tyco – anyone who sits on the board of directors of a publicly held company knows that they’re going to be held far more accountable for their actions today than they were 10 years ago.
Rumsfeld knew that 10 years ago.
He made it a point, through his questions, to understand the plans and the marketplace. He likely signed off on a lot of actions that Tribune executives went on to execute but that didn’t stop him from gaining as much of an understanding as possible of these plans during a board meeting.
There’s likely no bureaucracy in Washington that’s more set in its ways than the Defense Department. Generals and admirals are often accused of using obsolete strategy and tactics to fight the war effort they’re leading.
Rumsfeld challenged his subordinates to think differently about how they’d fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. More than one senior officer likely didn’t appreciate these questions. They probably would have preferred a defense secretary that would rubber stamp their war plans.
That’s not Rumsfeld. He doesn’t rubber stamp anything.
The results in Afghanistan were startling. The United States was the first western army to conquer Afghanistan. Compare that to the British, who lost an entire army in Afghanistan in the 19th century and, later, the Soviet Union, which decided they couldn’t successfully occupy or pacify the country.
There are a lot of questions that need to be resolved about Afghanistan. But the victory orchestrated by Rumsfeld can’t be dismissed.
The same is true with the Iraq War of 2003. The basic tenants of the plan weren’t all that new – the British basically went in the same way in the early 20th century – but the results were no less outstanding. Even military historian John Keegan confirmed that.
The mistake that Rumsfeld made in Iraq was not planning for the postwar occupation. There’s every reason to believe that he never thought about an insurgency.
Still, in the course of executing these war plans, Rumsfeld forced the generals and the admirals to think about fighting wars far differently. For some of them, it was probably the biggest challenge they’d had since they attained their high ranks.
Some of the thinking that Rumsfeld instilled in his officers will likely remain around for decades, and, yes, it could, one day, be criticized as being obsolete.
Perhaps had Rumsfeld come across as a nicer man he wouldn’t have been forced out of his job. We’ll never know. And, yes, Rumsfeld does deserve a lot of the criticism he’s received. Even he would admit that.
And while I’m sure Robert Gates, the defense secretary-designate, is a capable executive, I wonder if he’ll bring the same level of intellectual energy to the job as his predecessor.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
The Morning After
Thank God the election is over.
By the time Tuesday rolled around, I’d had my fill of phone calls from former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, First Lady Laura Bush and others pushing the Republican cause in Illinois’ Sixth Congressional District.
Rudy called here about three times. The first time he called, I wasn’t home. So he was kind enough to leave a message. I didn’t erase it. Instead, when my wife got home from the office that night, I told her Rudy called, seeking her vote for Peter Roskam.
She didn’t believe me. Then she checked the messages and she couldn’t believe what she heard – a recorded political message from Rudy. That went on through the last four days prior to the election, with Rudy calling back three more times; Laura called only once.
I’m not sure I ever want to see another flyer ever again either. I’m not sure how many we received from the Roskam campaign, but if I had to guess, I’d say it was around six. Tammy Duckworth only sent one or two.
Now comes the hard part – governing. The Democrats and President Bush must lead the country under a new set of circumstances. The smart thinkers among the Democrats will soon learn that skills required to be an administration’s constant critic are quite different than the abilities needed to manage, govern and lead. Smart Republicans, at the same time, are figuring out where they can agree with their loyal opponents, so they’re in a stronger position in 2008 and than they were this year.
For U. S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the next likely Speaker of the House, and President Bush, their challenge will be keeping their supporters on the extreme left and right under control as they find areas where they can easily compromise and pass legislation that benefits them both.
Pelosi is a smart political thinker. She knows her margin over the Republicans is thin. The same will hold for whoever is elected as the next Senate Majority Leader.
For that matter, President Bush and the Congressional Republican leadership know that while they’re not quite down and out, they need to play their cards smarter if they want to ensure their future.
Pelosi’s challenge will be to make sure this election isn’t a fluke. Her challenge will be to hold together moderates and extremes within her party, and it’s my prediction that she’ll temper her views, at least publicly.
Bush and Pelosi, in fact, may discover that sometimes there’s nothing worse than an ally with whom you share the same political affiliation.
This is one of these times in our political history when the goals of both the executive and legislative branch are just as equally aligned as they are opposed.
For the President, his goal over the next two years will be to secure a legacy that has him riding high in the polls by the time he leaves office. He will also seek to make Republicans far more palatable to the electorate, so he’s succeeded in 2009 by another member of his party.
The Democrats also want The White House. So they’ll do whatever is necessary to hold their position, so they’re perceived as elect-able and able to govern the country.
How will all of this turn out? Stay tuned.
By the time Tuesday rolled around, I’d had my fill of phone calls from former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, First Lady Laura Bush and others pushing the Republican cause in Illinois’ Sixth Congressional District.
Rudy called here about three times. The first time he called, I wasn’t home. So he was kind enough to leave a message. I didn’t erase it. Instead, when my wife got home from the office that night, I told her Rudy called, seeking her vote for Peter Roskam.
She didn’t believe me. Then she checked the messages and she couldn’t believe what she heard – a recorded political message from Rudy. That went on through the last four days prior to the election, with Rudy calling back three more times; Laura called only once.
I’m not sure I ever want to see another flyer ever again either. I’m not sure how many we received from the Roskam campaign, but if I had to guess, I’d say it was around six. Tammy Duckworth only sent one or two.
Now comes the hard part – governing. The Democrats and President Bush must lead the country under a new set of circumstances. The smart thinkers among the Democrats will soon learn that skills required to be an administration’s constant critic are quite different than the abilities needed to manage, govern and lead. Smart Republicans, at the same time, are figuring out where they can agree with their loyal opponents, so they’re in a stronger position in 2008 and than they were this year.
For U. S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the next likely Speaker of the House, and President Bush, their challenge will be keeping their supporters on the extreme left and right under control as they find areas where they can easily compromise and pass legislation that benefits them both.
Pelosi is a smart political thinker. She knows her margin over the Republicans is thin. The same will hold for whoever is elected as the next Senate Majority Leader.
For that matter, President Bush and the Congressional Republican leadership know that while they’re not quite down and out, they need to play their cards smarter if they want to ensure their future.
Pelosi’s challenge will be to make sure this election isn’t a fluke. Her challenge will be to hold together moderates and extremes within her party, and it’s my prediction that she’ll temper her views, at least publicly.
Bush and Pelosi, in fact, may discover that sometimes there’s nothing worse than an ally with whom you share the same political affiliation.
This is one of these times in our political history when the goals of both the executive and legislative branch are just as equally aligned as they are opposed.
For the President, his goal over the next two years will be to secure a legacy that has him riding high in the polls by the time he leaves office. He will also seek to make Republicans far more palatable to the electorate, so he’s succeeded in 2009 by another member of his party.
The Democrats also want The White House. So they’ll do whatever is necessary to hold their position, so they’re perceived as elect-able and able to govern the country.
How will all of this turn out? Stay tuned.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Election Results 2006
The election results shouldn't come as too much of a surprise to anyone. The Democrats were always favored to gain the House of Representatives while control of the Senate remained debatable.
Here's some quick commentary on some of the elections:
-- Illinois' Gubernatorial Election -- This was never in doubt. It was always Democrat Rod Blagojevich's election to lose. The larger question is will he survive a second term. The scandals involving some of his supporters may also hit the governor.
-- Illinois Sixth Congressional District -- Had Tammy Duckworth stayed focused on the district, and worked the campaign harder, she'd be the toast of the Democrats today. Instead, Peter Roskam, undeterred by all the attention Tammy received, kept his nose to close the ground, worked hard for every vote, and today is Henry Hyde's successor. Tammy's loss also begs the question: Did the Democrats do everything they could to help her? Answer: No!
-- Illinois Cook County Board President -- This is machine politics at its best, resulting in Todd Stroger succeeding his father as Cook County Board President.
-- New York's U.S. Senate Race -- Hillary wins and she's reported to have a campaign war chest of around $15 million. What's in store for 2008? I'm guessing it's a run at the Democratic nomination for president.
-- California's Gubernatorial Election -- Arnold owes this victory to his wife. When the polls were down, she did a complete makeover of Arnold's office, installing a Democrat as his chief of staff. This resulted in Arnold moving toward the center and securing his re-election.
-- Connecticut's U.S. Senate Race -- What were the Democrats thinking when they deposed U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman as their candidate? Joe proved he knows Connecticut voters better than his opponent, Ned Lamont, and the national DNC party. Now the Democrats are forced into making amends to Lieberman. And Joe's in a position to do pretty much whatever he wants in the U.S. Senate. How refreshing! Hats off to Joe!
-- Virginia's & Montana's U.S. Senate Races -- As of this writing, the results show that neither election has been called. Stay tuned.
Here's some quick commentary on some of the elections:
-- Illinois' Gubernatorial Election -- This was never in doubt. It was always Democrat Rod Blagojevich's election to lose. The larger question is will he survive a second term. The scandals involving some of his supporters may also hit the governor.
-- Illinois Sixth Congressional District -- Had Tammy Duckworth stayed focused on the district, and worked the campaign harder, she'd be the toast of the Democrats today. Instead, Peter Roskam, undeterred by all the attention Tammy received, kept his nose to close the ground, worked hard for every vote, and today is Henry Hyde's successor. Tammy's loss also begs the question: Did the Democrats do everything they could to help her? Answer: No!
-- Illinois Cook County Board President -- This is machine politics at its best, resulting in Todd Stroger succeeding his father as Cook County Board President.
-- New York's U.S. Senate Race -- Hillary wins and she's reported to have a campaign war chest of around $15 million. What's in store for 2008? I'm guessing it's a run at the Democratic nomination for president.
-- California's Gubernatorial Election -- Arnold owes this victory to his wife. When the polls were down, she did a complete makeover of Arnold's office, installing a Democrat as his chief of staff. This resulted in Arnold moving toward the center and securing his re-election.
-- Connecticut's U.S. Senate Race -- What were the Democrats thinking when they deposed U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman as their candidate? Joe proved he knows Connecticut voters better than his opponent, Ned Lamont, and the national DNC party. Now the Democrats are forced into making amends to Lieberman. And Joe's in a position to do pretty much whatever he wants in the U.S. Senate. How refreshing! Hats off to Joe!
-- Virginia's & Montana's U.S. Senate Races -- As of this writing, the results show that neither election has been called. Stay tuned.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
American DNA: An Attempt to Define American People & Thought
With the mid-term elections underway, people around the world are wondering– once again! – what the United States is all about.
Are we a bunch of fire-breathing, church-going fanatics, war-mongers, money-hungry capitalists, pornographers, exporters of pop culture trash and fast food, and Fox Network viewers? Or are we, instead, a group of erudite, peace-loving, highly educated, New York Times-reading, wine drinking, brie eating liberals sporting a nuanced approached to all that we undertake?
Many Americans attend a religious service on the weekend, filling themselves up with spirituality only to trash it by 9:30 Monday morning in the name of the Almighty bottom line. And if someone gets hurt along the way, well, that’s just too damn bad.
Some of us, on the other hand, spend our free time attending a cultural outing; updating ourselves with a serious newspaper or magazine and then complimenting ourselves for being so damn smart; we then complete the weekend by downing a thick, succulent pork chop with a side of mashed potatoes, washed down, of course, with an appropriate libation that would meet the approval of the discerning editors of the Wine Spectator.
And that’s the problem with the United States. It’s a mix.
There are the extremes, like meat-eating conservatives and vegetarian liberals, along with every possible combination in between. We might ask a mathematician what the factorial is so we have an idea of just how many possible combinations exist. But, as those people around the world see it, if we Americans could just be one or the other, conservative or liberal, then they wouldn’t be so confused about our identity.
There have been numerous books and shows about the American state of mind. Each takes a different approach, thinking they’ve summed up pretty much how Americans think and then act. And, this week, if you have access to satellite radio, you can listen to a BBC program that attempts to explain America to its listeners around the world.
The foundations of American culture and identity are found within the two surviving, English-speaking colonies, Jamestown and Plymouth Rock. These two colonies, one about money, the other about religion, left ever-lasting impressions, determining, in many ways, U.S. priorities and concerns that continue to this very day. In many ways religion and money provide Americans a prism through which issues are interpreted, considered, thought about and often through which polices are created.
U.S. history pretty much leaves Jamestown out in the cold. But it is no less significant. In fact, the main crop of Jamestown, tobacco, remains with us today and causes legal and medical problems to this very day.
Jamestown is nearly forgotten because there are no national holidays which resulted from its founding. In comparison, Plymouth Rock and its Puritans have fared much better over time because of the Thanksgiving holiday.
Settled in April 1607, about 13 years ahead of Plymouth Rock, Jamestown was all about cash. It was originally owned by the London Company, and its charter, granted by the British Crown, was to make a profit. It was to happen, the original managers thought, through the mining of precious metals.
Not much is known about Jamestown’s first settlers. Alden Vaughan, author of “American Genesis: Captain John Smith and the Founding of Virginia,” writes that the original settlers included “more than fifty gentlemen … one clergyman … four carpenters, twelve laborers, two bricklayers, a blacksmith, a mason, a tailor, a surgeon, a sailmaker, a drummer, and four boys.” The ships’ crews were not included in this original count. We don’t know much about the character of these people other than the London Company was looking for men “of skill, energy, and self-sacrifice.”
Unlike their fellow settlers in Massachusetts, the men of Jamestown were expected, writes Vaughan, “to meet the company’s demand for profits.” The London Company’s shareholders would earn dividends through the Colony’s successful mining of precious metals, farming and trade with Native Americans.
Jamestown’s managers and colonists quickly discovered that there were no precious metals to be found. Four years after the colony’s founding, John Rolfe planted tobacco. His first crop was harvested in 1612, Vaughan writes, and he was exporting it to England shortly thereafter. Three years later, he exported 2,000 lbs of tobacco to England; by 1620, he exported 40,000 lbs of tobacco; the amount exported increased, by 1629, to 1.5 million lbs.
Tobacco became the colony’s saving grace. There was a ready market in England for Virginia tobacco; and by consuming Virginia tobacco, England was no longer putting money into the coffers of their leading rival of the day, Spain. While tobacco certainly provided the colony with revenue, those running Jamestown became so concerned about the colonists appetite for growing tobacco that they had to force them grow corn (wheat) so they’d survive.
While he wasn’t the colony’s only leader, Captain John Smith personifies what Jamestown was all about. His dream, writes Dorothy and Thomas Hoobler in their book “Captain John Smith: Jamestown and the Birth of The American Dream,” was to create a colony where men of limited means but great spirit “could prosper and, yes, grow rich.”
This desire to become rich is found throughout American history. And, as a result, Americans are concerned about pocketbook issues. The politicians know this which is why taxes and economics merit so much time and energy, especially during elections.
Are you better off today than you were four years ago, Ronald Reagan asked back in 1980 while running for president. The majority said no, tossing aside President Carter in favor of California’s former governor.
In 1620, a very different kind of colony was founded on the Massachusetts shore. The Puritans, the evangelical Christians of their day, first landed in what today is Provincetown, on the northern tip of Cape Cod, before forming a permanent colony in Plymouth Rock. They came to America, Paul Johnson writes, in his book “A History of the American People,” to create Heaven on earth.
The Puritans were about taking Christianity back to its roots. Purifying it, you might say. They interpreted the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the Christian New Testament literally; and because there’s no mention of any kind of church hierarchy in the New Testament, it was their belief that the Church of England was fundamentally out of step with God’s will.
Puritan belief said that the Scriptures “were God’s direct way of communicating to mankind,” writes Neil Baldwin in his book “The American Revelation: Ten Ideals That Shaped Our Country from the Puritans to the Cold War.” This kind of thinking left no room for priests or bishops because their authority was considered “arbitrary and unwarranted.”
Puritans did not sing hymns because they were considered to be a “corruption of God’s word,” writes Nathaniel Philbrick in his book “Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War.” They did sing psalms; and they never knelt while taking communion because “there was no evidence that the apostles had done so during the Last Supper,” writes Philbrick.
The original settlers to Massachusetts were very much radicals of their day. They were “Separatists,” who left the Church of England, an illegal act at the time. They went to Holland before heading to America because the Dutch were far more tolerant of different religions. And, frankly, England was just as ready to rid themselves of them.
Prior to their actual landing in Massachusetts, 41 male settlers signed the Mayflower Compact, by which they agreed that “ … for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith and honor of our King and country … (we) … solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one another … combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation … constitute … just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.”
Today such a document is easily dismissed but when looked at more closely, and considering when it was written, this is the first example of average people signing a written pledge about how they’d behave within a larger political body. They pledged themselves to doing what was necessary for the good of the colony. So they’d subjugate their individual desires and needs for the greater good of the colony in order to ensure its survival. And, of course, as you’d have expected of those times, only the men signed the compact.
Both Jamestown and Plymouth Rock went through very difficult times. Colonists died due to disease, occasional fights with Native Americans and starvation. Life was hard. But the ones that survived, along with their descendents, determined the character of what was to become the United States. The turmoil produced a hardy people who conquered their environment, indigenous peoples, and the land that would become the United States.
Unlike other countries that were created by people sharing a similar background, ethnicity or geographic location, America is an idea. This means it accepts all who arrive at its shores. The two primary ideas that have driven people here, religious freedom and boundless economic potential, supersede, in many ways, political freedom. That would come much later, after the Revolution in the late 18th century.
It’s easy to dismiss people who are religious as fools. But one should keep in mind that the first politics of American settlers included religion. This was the way the Puritans distinguished themselves from the majority in England. Religion will always remain very important to Americans.
Henry Steele Commager, one of the 20th centuries brightest political thinkers, said Americans were defined by “the whole of the American environment – the sense of spaciousness, the invitation to mobility, the atmosphere of independence, the encouragement to enterprise and to optimism.” Europeans, wrote Commager, “lived so much in the past (but Americans) lived in the future, caring little for what the day might bring but much for the dreams – and profits – of the morrow.”
Commager said that Americans, while “often romantic about business … (were) practical about politics, religion, culture and science. He was endlessly ingenious and resourceful, always ready to improvise new tools or techniques to meet new conditions.” This American mind, which was the title of one of Commager’s books, borrowed freely from the natives as well as the other immigrants in order to survive.
Seymour Martin Lipsett, in his book “American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword,” writes that there’s such a thing as an “American Creed.” It is described “in five terms: liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism, and laissez-faire.” These values, Lipsett wrote, “reflect the absence of feudal structures, monarchies and aristocracies” within the United States.
Because the United States never experienced feudalism, it has always been a country whose people have never understood or accepted class divisions. But, writes Lipsett, “European countries, Canada and Japan have placed greater emphasis on obedience to political authority and on deference to superiors.”
The United States is one of the most religious countries in the world. “It has exhibited greater acceptance of biblical beliefs and higher levels of church attendance than elsewhere, with the possible exceptions of Poland and Ireland,” writes Lipsett. Church attendance in America is voluntary and churches are not state supported. This means that all denominations “must raise their own funds, engaging in a constant struggle to retain or expand the number of their adherents,” writes Lipsett.
Religion in America also defines how the country goes to war, writes Lipsett. “Americans must define their role in a conflict as being on God’s side against Satan – for morality, against evil,” writes Lipsett. He goes on to write, “The United States primarily goes to war against evil, not, in its self-perception, to defend material interests.”
So while many Americans took issue with how President George W. Bush took the country to war against Iraq, let’s consider for a moment how he defined the conflict. He said Saddam Hussein possessed “weapons of mass destruction.” Earlier, Bush defined Iraq, and Saddam in particular, has a nation that does “evil.” In many ways, President Bush used language that the American Heartland understood and, equally, how it defined America’s place in the world.
By defining the conflict in terms that many Americans understood, Bush was able to receive the support he needed to conduct the war against Iraq. He used the same language and spoke to America’s patriotism to secure re-election 2004. Had Bush’s opponent, U.S. Sen. John Kerry used similar language to criticize President Bush, he might very well be sitting in the Oval Office today.
So what are we? Well, it’s hard to completely define in this blog or anywhere else. But to sum it up, we’re a people who savor their freedom, are highly religious, enjoy independence, and are wary of state control. We’re also very generous. And much of what defines America today can be found in the two English-speaking colonies that survived, Jamestown and Plymouth Rock. It was their descendents who put America on the path to independence and greatness.
Today’s election results will be interesting to learn about later tonight and tomorrow. Study the winners. It’s likely that they studied the American mind in order to win.
If you want to know more about the American way of thinking, here’s a list of books you should consider:
“American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword,” Seymour Martin Lipsett, W. W. Norton & Company: 1996. I’ve found this to be the best book that sums up all of the ideas that have created the American state of mind. Lipsett is a political scientist.
“American Genesis: Captain John Smith and the Founding of Virginia,” Alden T. Vaughan, Little, Brown and Company: 1975. I read this book in college while majoring in history. I’ve found this to be the single best book on the Jamestown colony.
“Captain John Smith: Jamestown and the Birth of the American Dream,” Dorothy and Thomas Hoobler, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: 2006. A very readable book but it takes second place to Vaughan’s book.
“Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War,” Nathaniel Philbrick, Viking: 2006. This is a great read. I just bought it without my wife’s permission. Yikes!!!!!
“The American Mind: An Interpretation of American Thought and Character Since the 1880’s” Henry Steele Commager, Yale University Press: 1950. Commager was an American icon in political science circles in the mid-20th century.
“The American Political Tradition & The Men Who Made It,” Richard Hofstadter, Alfred A. Knopf: 1968. Anyone who has ever studied American politics has read something by Richard Hofstadter. I first came across him while studying U.S. History in high school, when I was expected to read his tome, “The Age of Reform.”
“The American Revelation: Ten Ideals that Shaped Our Country from the Puritans to the Cold War,” Neil Baldwin, St. Martin’s Press: 2005. An excellent book but I keep wondering why he didn’t write about Jamestown.
“Theology in America: Christian Thought from the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War,” E. Brooks Holifield, Yale University Press: 2003. This is heavy reading, especially if you’re not all that grounded in religious thought.
Are we a bunch of fire-breathing, church-going fanatics, war-mongers, money-hungry capitalists, pornographers, exporters of pop culture trash and fast food, and Fox Network viewers? Or are we, instead, a group of erudite, peace-loving, highly educated, New York Times-reading, wine drinking, brie eating liberals sporting a nuanced approached to all that we undertake?
Many Americans attend a religious service on the weekend, filling themselves up with spirituality only to trash it by 9:30 Monday morning in the name of the Almighty bottom line. And if someone gets hurt along the way, well, that’s just too damn bad.
Some of us, on the other hand, spend our free time attending a cultural outing; updating ourselves with a serious newspaper or magazine and then complimenting ourselves for being so damn smart; we then complete the weekend by downing a thick, succulent pork chop with a side of mashed potatoes, washed down, of course, with an appropriate libation that would meet the approval of the discerning editors of the Wine Spectator.
And that’s the problem with the United States. It’s a mix.
There are the extremes, like meat-eating conservatives and vegetarian liberals, along with every possible combination in between. We might ask a mathematician what the factorial is so we have an idea of just how many possible combinations exist. But, as those people around the world see it, if we Americans could just be one or the other, conservative or liberal, then they wouldn’t be so confused about our identity.
There have been numerous books and shows about the American state of mind. Each takes a different approach, thinking they’ve summed up pretty much how Americans think and then act. And, this week, if you have access to satellite radio, you can listen to a BBC program that attempts to explain America to its listeners around the world.
The foundations of American culture and identity are found within the two surviving, English-speaking colonies, Jamestown and Plymouth Rock. These two colonies, one about money, the other about religion, left ever-lasting impressions, determining, in many ways, U.S. priorities and concerns that continue to this very day. In many ways religion and money provide Americans a prism through which issues are interpreted, considered, thought about and often through which polices are created.
U.S. history pretty much leaves Jamestown out in the cold. But it is no less significant. In fact, the main crop of Jamestown, tobacco, remains with us today and causes legal and medical problems to this very day.
Jamestown is nearly forgotten because there are no national holidays which resulted from its founding. In comparison, Plymouth Rock and its Puritans have fared much better over time because of the Thanksgiving holiday.
Settled in April 1607, about 13 years ahead of Plymouth Rock, Jamestown was all about cash. It was originally owned by the London Company, and its charter, granted by the British Crown, was to make a profit. It was to happen, the original managers thought, through the mining of precious metals.
Not much is known about Jamestown’s first settlers. Alden Vaughan, author of “American Genesis: Captain John Smith and the Founding of Virginia,” writes that the original settlers included “more than fifty gentlemen … one clergyman … four carpenters, twelve laborers, two bricklayers, a blacksmith, a mason, a tailor, a surgeon, a sailmaker, a drummer, and four boys.” The ships’ crews were not included in this original count. We don’t know much about the character of these people other than the London Company was looking for men “of skill, energy, and self-sacrifice.”
Unlike their fellow settlers in Massachusetts, the men of Jamestown were expected, writes Vaughan, “to meet the company’s demand for profits.” The London Company’s shareholders would earn dividends through the Colony’s successful mining of precious metals, farming and trade with Native Americans.
Jamestown’s managers and colonists quickly discovered that there were no precious metals to be found. Four years after the colony’s founding, John Rolfe planted tobacco. His first crop was harvested in 1612, Vaughan writes, and he was exporting it to England shortly thereafter. Three years later, he exported 2,000 lbs of tobacco to England; by 1620, he exported 40,000 lbs of tobacco; the amount exported increased, by 1629, to 1.5 million lbs.
Tobacco became the colony’s saving grace. There was a ready market in England for Virginia tobacco; and by consuming Virginia tobacco, England was no longer putting money into the coffers of their leading rival of the day, Spain. While tobacco certainly provided the colony with revenue, those running Jamestown became so concerned about the colonists appetite for growing tobacco that they had to force them grow corn (wheat) so they’d survive.
While he wasn’t the colony’s only leader, Captain John Smith personifies what Jamestown was all about. His dream, writes Dorothy and Thomas Hoobler in their book “Captain John Smith: Jamestown and the Birth of The American Dream,” was to create a colony where men of limited means but great spirit “could prosper and, yes, grow rich.”
This desire to become rich is found throughout American history. And, as a result, Americans are concerned about pocketbook issues. The politicians know this which is why taxes and economics merit so much time and energy, especially during elections.
Are you better off today than you were four years ago, Ronald Reagan asked back in 1980 while running for president. The majority said no, tossing aside President Carter in favor of California’s former governor.
In 1620, a very different kind of colony was founded on the Massachusetts shore. The Puritans, the evangelical Christians of their day, first landed in what today is Provincetown, on the northern tip of Cape Cod, before forming a permanent colony in Plymouth Rock. They came to America, Paul Johnson writes, in his book “A History of the American People,” to create Heaven on earth.
The Puritans were about taking Christianity back to its roots. Purifying it, you might say. They interpreted the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the Christian New Testament literally; and because there’s no mention of any kind of church hierarchy in the New Testament, it was their belief that the Church of England was fundamentally out of step with God’s will.
Puritan belief said that the Scriptures “were God’s direct way of communicating to mankind,” writes Neil Baldwin in his book “The American Revelation: Ten Ideals That Shaped Our Country from the Puritans to the Cold War.” This kind of thinking left no room for priests or bishops because their authority was considered “arbitrary and unwarranted.”
Puritans did not sing hymns because they were considered to be a “corruption of God’s word,” writes Nathaniel Philbrick in his book “Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War.” They did sing psalms; and they never knelt while taking communion because “there was no evidence that the apostles had done so during the Last Supper,” writes Philbrick.
The original settlers to Massachusetts were very much radicals of their day. They were “Separatists,” who left the Church of England, an illegal act at the time. They went to Holland before heading to America because the Dutch were far more tolerant of different religions. And, frankly, England was just as ready to rid themselves of them.
Prior to their actual landing in Massachusetts, 41 male settlers signed the Mayflower Compact, by which they agreed that “ … for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith and honor of our King and country … (we) … solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one another … combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation … constitute … just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.”
Today such a document is easily dismissed but when looked at more closely, and considering when it was written, this is the first example of average people signing a written pledge about how they’d behave within a larger political body. They pledged themselves to doing what was necessary for the good of the colony. So they’d subjugate their individual desires and needs for the greater good of the colony in order to ensure its survival. And, of course, as you’d have expected of those times, only the men signed the compact.
Both Jamestown and Plymouth Rock went through very difficult times. Colonists died due to disease, occasional fights with Native Americans and starvation. Life was hard. But the ones that survived, along with their descendents, determined the character of what was to become the United States. The turmoil produced a hardy people who conquered their environment, indigenous peoples, and the land that would become the United States.
Unlike other countries that were created by people sharing a similar background, ethnicity or geographic location, America is an idea. This means it accepts all who arrive at its shores. The two primary ideas that have driven people here, religious freedom and boundless economic potential, supersede, in many ways, political freedom. That would come much later, after the Revolution in the late 18th century.
It’s easy to dismiss people who are religious as fools. But one should keep in mind that the first politics of American settlers included religion. This was the way the Puritans distinguished themselves from the majority in England. Religion will always remain very important to Americans.
Henry Steele Commager, one of the 20th centuries brightest political thinkers, said Americans were defined by “the whole of the American environment – the sense of spaciousness, the invitation to mobility, the atmosphere of independence, the encouragement to enterprise and to optimism.” Europeans, wrote Commager, “lived so much in the past (but Americans) lived in the future, caring little for what the day might bring but much for the dreams – and profits – of the morrow.”
Commager said that Americans, while “often romantic about business … (were) practical about politics, religion, culture and science. He was endlessly ingenious and resourceful, always ready to improvise new tools or techniques to meet new conditions.” This American mind, which was the title of one of Commager’s books, borrowed freely from the natives as well as the other immigrants in order to survive.
Seymour Martin Lipsett, in his book “American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword,” writes that there’s such a thing as an “American Creed.” It is described “in five terms: liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism, and laissez-faire.” These values, Lipsett wrote, “reflect the absence of feudal structures, monarchies and aristocracies” within the United States.
Because the United States never experienced feudalism, it has always been a country whose people have never understood or accepted class divisions. But, writes Lipsett, “European countries, Canada and Japan have placed greater emphasis on obedience to political authority and on deference to superiors.”
The United States is one of the most religious countries in the world. “It has exhibited greater acceptance of biblical beliefs and higher levels of church attendance than elsewhere, with the possible exceptions of Poland and Ireland,” writes Lipsett. Church attendance in America is voluntary and churches are not state supported. This means that all denominations “must raise their own funds, engaging in a constant struggle to retain or expand the number of their adherents,” writes Lipsett.
Religion in America also defines how the country goes to war, writes Lipsett. “Americans must define their role in a conflict as being on God’s side against Satan – for morality, against evil,” writes Lipsett. He goes on to write, “The United States primarily goes to war against evil, not, in its self-perception, to defend material interests.”
So while many Americans took issue with how President George W. Bush took the country to war against Iraq, let’s consider for a moment how he defined the conflict. He said Saddam Hussein possessed “weapons of mass destruction.” Earlier, Bush defined Iraq, and Saddam in particular, has a nation that does “evil.” In many ways, President Bush used language that the American Heartland understood and, equally, how it defined America’s place in the world.
By defining the conflict in terms that many Americans understood, Bush was able to receive the support he needed to conduct the war against Iraq. He used the same language and spoke to America’s patriotism to secure re-election 2004. Had Bush’s opponent, U.S. Sen. John Kerry used similar language to criticize President Bush, he might very well be sitting in the Oval Office today.
So what are we? Well, it’s hard to completely define in this blog or anywhere else. But to sum it up, we’re a people who savor their freedom, are highly religious, enjoy independence, and are wary of state control. We’re also very generous. And much of what defines America today can be found in the two English-speaking colonies that survived, Jamestown and Plymouth Rock. It was their descendents who put America on the path to independence and greatness.
Today’s election results will be interesting to learn about later tonight and tomorrow. Study the winners. It’s likely that they studied the American mind in order to win.
If you want to know more about the American way of thinking, here’s a list of books you should consider:
“American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword,” Seymour Martin Lipsett, W. W. Norton & Company: 1996. I’ve found this to be the best book that sums up all of the ideas that have created the American state of mind. Lipsett is a political scientist.
“American Genesis: Captain John Smith and the Founding of Virginia,” Alden T. Vaughan, Little, Brown and Company: 1975. I read this book in college while majoring in history. I’ve found this to be the single best book on the Jamestown colony.
“Captain John Smith: Jamestown and the Birth of the American Dream,” Dorothy and Thomas Hoobler, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: 2006. A very readable book but it takes second place to Vaughan’s book.
“Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War,” Nathaniel Philbrick, Viking: 2006. This is a great read. I just bought it without my wife’s permission. Yikes!!!!!
“The American Mind: An Interpretation of American Thought and Character Since the 1880’s” Henry Steele Commager, Yale University Press: 1950. Commager was an American icon in political science circles in the mid-20th century.
“The American Political Tradition & The Men Who Made It,” Richard Hofstadter, Alfred A. Knopf: 1968. Anyone who has ever studied American politics has read something by Richard Hofstadter. I first came across him while studying U.S. History in high school, when I was expected to read his tome, “The Age of Reform.”
“The American Revelation: Ten Ideals that Shaped Our Country from the Puritans to the Cold War,” Neil Baldwin, St. Martin’s Press: 2005. An excellent book but I keep wondering why he didn’t write about Jamestown.
“Theology in America: Christian Thought from the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War,” E. Brooks Holifield, Yale University Press: 2003. This is heavy reading, especially if you’re not all that grounded in religious thought.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Supporting dictators
On rare occasion I've actually "voted" for someone. But usually, like most Americans I suppose, I've just voted against their opponent.
I can probably list on one hand the number of times I voted for someone. It includes the likes of John Anderson, a congressman from Rockford, Illinois, who ran an ill-fated independent presidential campaign against Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan 26 years ago and Richard Daley, who first ran for mayor of Chicago back in 1989. I'm sure there are others but, for the life of me, I can't remember their names.
More often than not, I've gone into the voting booth, held my nose, and made my selections. It didn't matter if they were Republicans or Democrats. I haven't liked the candidates I've chosen.
Some of this is due to the way campaigns are managed these days. To be victorious in a presidential primary, for example, a candidate needs to appeal to their party's true believers. The result is that we get Republicans and Democrats who appeal to their party's extremists, leaving people like me, more oriented toward the center, feeling as if there's no one they really want to vote for during the general election.
On the whole, I've found Republicans to be usually far more conservative than I'd prefer and Democrats to be out of touch with reality.
In spite of these observations, however, it's never stopped me from voting. And it shouldn't stop you either. Even if you despise both candidates.
If you don't vote, you're supporting an argument made centuries ago -- that people are incapable of ruling themselves. This argument continues to have life to this very day in places like Africa, the Middle East, Asia and maybe a few other places I've forgotten about, where human rights are spit upon.
And I don't know about you, but under no circumstance do I want to find myself holding the same political position as North Korean dictator Kim Jung Il.
By voting, you're proving that people are capable of understanding the issues their community, state or country faces and selecting the candidate that is best suited to handle them.
So get out and vote!
You don't have to like every candidate you chose. But, at the very least, you should take the time to understand the issues and then vote for the candidate you think will do the best job.
By not voting, you're supporting the political positions of dictators and monarchs. Their argument goes something like this -- you're too stupid to govern yourself.
Have some pride, vote!
I can probably list on one hand the number of times I voted for someone. It includes the likes of John Anderson, a congressman from Rockford, Illinois, who ran an ill-fated independent presidential campaign against Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan 26 years ago and Richard Daley, who first ran for mayor of Chicago back in 1989. I'm sure there are others but, for the life of me, I can't remember their names.
More often than not, I've gone into the voting booth, held my nose, and made my selections. It didn't matter if they were Republicans or Democrats. I haven't liked the candidates I've chosen.
Some of this is due to the way campaigns are managed these days. To be victorious in a presidential primary, for example, a candidate needs to appeal to their party's true believers. The result is that we get Republicans and Democrats who appeal to their party's extremists, leaving people like me, more oriented toward the center, feeling as if there's no one they really want to vote for during the general election.
On the whole, I've found Republicans to be usually far more conservative than I'd prefer and Democrats to be out of touch with reality.
In spite of these observations, however, it's never stopped me from voting. And it shouldn't stop you either. Even if you despise both candidates.
If you don't vote, you're supporting an argument made centuries ago -- that people are incapable of ruling themselves. This argument continues to have life to this very day in places like Africa, the Middle East, Asia and maybe a few other places I've forgotten about, where human rights are spit upon.
And I don't know about you, but under no circumstance do I want to find myself holding the same political position as North Korean dictator Kim Jung Il.
By voting, you're proving that people are capable of understanding the issues their community, state or country faces and selecting the candidate that is best suited to handle them.
So get out and vote!
You don't have to like every candidate you chose. But, at the very least, you should take the time to understand the issues and then vote for the candidate you think will do the best job.
By not voting, you're supporting the political positions of dictators and monarchs. Their argument goes something like this -- you're too stupid to govern yourself.
Have some pride, vote!
Friday, November 03, 2006
The U.S. Daily Newspaper earned its fate
If you're reading this blog, you may very well not be reading a daily newspaper, a course of action not even this correspondent would recommend.
One of the great tragedies of the modern world is that daily newspapers in the United States, which remain the single best source for staying informed on current events, whether they're happening around the globe, the country or in your very own backyard, are in a precipitous decline.
To be blunt, the U.S. newspaper industry is sucking wind. And that's putting it mildly.
Earlier this week, the Audit Bureau of Circulations, which measures the number of copies that newspapers sell (as well as some weekly newspapers and magazines), reported that the U.S. daily newspaper industry, on average, is selling 2.8 percent fewer newspapers this year than it was last year.
In some cases, the drop is extraordinary. The Los Angeles Times is selling 8 percent fewer newspapers this year than it was a year ago. It wasn't all that long ago that the Los Angeles Times boasted a daily circulation in excess of 1 million.
But, recently, top executives of the paper cut back on some of their circulation drives and, as a result, the paper now sells 775,766 copies, on average, during the week. That's a drop of between 300,000 - 400,000 copies since 2000, when the paper was purchased by Tribune Company.
This story is seen all around the country. Newspapers are losing ground as print products.
In fact, of the top 10 newspapers in the United States, only two, the New York Post and the New York Daily News, reported circulation gains.
Unlike their brethren in the daily newspaper industry, these two newspapers are tabloids. They tend toward using sensational headlines, which capture their readers' interest and, as a result, are purchased, usually at a convenience store or in a box or at a newsstand.
The way they present the leading issues of the day -- whether it's a national or international story or just a local, juicy crime article -- bothers their colleagues at more sedate newspapers -- to no end.
People who work at tabloids, the purists among journalists will say, are not real journalists. They're all about hype just so they can sell an extra copy of their paper.
And that criticism might actually be justified. But at least the editors and reporters at the New York Post and the Daily News are doing something to ensure their future.
As New York Post editor Col Allen said recently, American newspapers, if they're not the Post and the Daily News, are "boring as bat shit."
About a year ago, American daily newspaper executives began to wake up to the fact that fewer people were reading them -- at least as print products. While their Internet sites were gaining traction, they still weren't covering their paper's costs.
This circulation decline is attributable, in many ways, to the fact that few, if any, top newspaper executives have a background in circulation. Publishers and their bosses tend to come up through the advertising and editorial ranks. Sometimes they'll come up through the finance or company's legal ranks.
But rarely, if ever, is someone anointed a publisher who has a background in selling the newspaper. Which is tragic. Because if there's any one individual at the newspaper who is cognizant of how the paper is received in the community it serves, it's the executive carrying the title of Circulation Director.
As a result, the people running daily newspapers in the United States haven't a clue as to what their readers are thinking. Oh, they might have some idea because they've asked their circulation director for information about their readers and non readers, but they don't carry their knowledge in their gut -- like their circulation director does.
The great tragedy of the American newspaper industry, if it were to disappear one day, is that there's no one who will cover a community, a nation and the world with as much depth as it does.
The television and radio networks, their affiliates, and independent radio and television stations, can only skim the surface of the issues. That's not a criticism of how they do their job. It's reality. Magazines only come out once a week and they tend to cover large geographic areas.
I grew up in the New York metropolitan area and became a daily New York Times reader when I was 15. I'm still one to this very day. My dad also read the Times as well as The Wall Street Journal; on the evening train home from New York, he'd purchase the the Post and bring it home. We always had fun laughing at the Post's headlines.
One of the things that my dad noticed on the train was that, in the morning, people tended to buy The Times and The Journal and read them cover to cover. In fact, the morning train was as quiet as a library because people were devouring every sentence published in the Times or the Journal.
But in the late afternoon or evening, when these people were coming home, they bought the Post or the Daily News. They were stock brokers, investment bankers or leading executives at Fortune 500 companies. A well-educated, high-income, sober group.
I still recall learning about the appeal of the New York Post from my dad. He asked an investment banker why he bought the Post every evening.
"Easy," he said. "I read the Times and the Journal in the morning. At 10 am I've made a deal. At 2 pm I've lost a deal. At the end of the day, I want to read about the nigger in Queens who's got it worse off than I do."
Say what you will about the New York Post. At least the editors know their audience.
One of the great tragedies of the modern world is that daily newspapers in the United States, which remain the single best source for staying informed on current events, whether they're happening around the globe, the country or in your very own backyard, are in a precipitous decline.
To be blunt, the U.S. newspaper industry is sucking wind. And that's putting it mildly.
Earlier this week, the Audit Bureau of Circulations, which measures the number of copies that newspapers sell (as well as some weekly newspapers and magazines), reported that the U.S. daily newspaper industry, on average, is selling 2.8 percent fewer newspapers this year than it was last year.
In some cases, the drop is extraordinary. The Los Angeles Times is selling 8 percent fewer newspapers this year than it was a year ago. It wasn't all that long ago that the Los Angeles Times boasted a daily circulation in excess of 1 million.
But, recently, top executives of the paper cut back on some of their circulation drives and, as a result, the paper now sells 775,766 copies, on average, during the week. That's a drop of between 300,000 - 400,000 copies since 2000, when the paper was purchased by Tribune Company.
This story is seen all around the country. Newspapers are losing ground as print products.
In fact, of the top 10 newspapers in the United States, only two, the New York Post and the New York Daily News, reported circulation gains.
Unlike their brethren in the daily newspaper industry, these two newspapers are tabloids. They tend toward using sensational headlines, which capture their readers' interest and, as a result, are purchased, usually at a convenience store or in a box or at a newsstand.
The way they present the leading issues of the day -- whether it's a national or international story or just a local, juicy crime article -- bothers their colleagues at more sedate newspapers -- to no end.
People who work at tabloids, the purists among journalists will say, are not real journalists. They're all about hype just so they can sell an extra copy of their paper.
And that criticism might actually be justified. But at least the editors and reporters at the New York Post and the Daily News are doing something to ensure their future.
As New York Post editor Col Allen said recently, American newspapers, if they're not the Post and the Daily News, are "boring as bat shit."
About a year ago, American daily newspaper executives began to wake up to the fact that fewer people were reading them -- at least as print products. While their Internet sites were gaining traction, they still weren't covering their paper's costs.
This circulation decline is attributable, in many ways, to the fact that few, if any, top newspaper executives have a background in circulation. Publishers and their bosses tend to come up through the advertising and editorial ranks. Sometimes they'll come up through the finance or company's legal ranks.
But rarely, if ever, is someone anointed a publisher who has a background in selling the newspaper. Which is tragic. Because if there's any one individual at the newspaper who is cognizant of how the paper is received in the community it serves, it's the executive carrying the title of Circulation Director.
As a result, the people running daily newspapers in the United States haven't a clue as to what their readers are thinking. Oh, they might have some idea because they've asked their circulation director for information about their readers and non readers, but they don't carry their knowledge in their gut -- like their circulation director does.
The great tragedy of the American newspaper industry, if it were to disappear one day, is that there's no one who will cover a community, a nation and the world with as much depth as it does.
The television and radio networks, their affiliates, and independent radio and television stations, can only skim the surface of the issues. That's not a criticism of how they do their job. It's reality. Magazines only come out once a week and they tend to cover large geographic areas.
I grew up in the New York metropolitan area and became a daily New York Times reader when I was 15. I'm still one to this very day. My dad also read the Times as well as The Wall Street Journal; on the evening train home from New York, he'd purchase the the Post and bring it home. We always had fun laughing at the Post's headlines.
One of the things that my dad noticed on the train was that, in the morning, people tended to buy The Times and The Journal and read them cover to cover. In fact, the morning train was as quiet as a library because people were devouring every sentence published in the Times or the Journal.
But in the late afternoon or evening, when these people were coming home, they bought the Post or the Daily News. They were stock brokers, investment bankers or leading executives at Fortune 500 companies. A well-educated, high-income, sober group.
I still recall learning about the appeal of the New York Post from my dad. He asked an investment banker why he bought the Post every evening.
"Easy," he said. "I read the Times and the Journal in the morning. At 10 am I've made a deal. At 2 pm I've lost a deal. At the end of the day, I want to read about the nigger in Queens who's got it worse off than I do."
Say what you will about the New York Post. At least the editors know their audience.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Tammy Duckworth: Confused
Someone needs to explain politics to Tammy Duckworth, the Democratic nominee for Illinois' Sixth Congressional District. And while they're at it, they should hold a calender in front of her, pointing out today's date as well as that of the upcoming election.
Eight days ahead of the election, Tammy thought it would be a good idea to head to New York to receive an award from Glamour magazine, the Daily Herald reports. There's nothing wrong with the magazine or even accepting the award, unless your opponent, a veteran politician, is pulling out all the stops to ensure his victory --not yours.
Which is exactly what is happening. Peter Roskam, the Republican nominee, was visited yesterday by U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a rock star in American politics. Later this week, Roskam will receive First Lady Laura Bush
The Roskam campaign consistently shows itself to be one very well-organized machine. It has updated its television advertisements and sends new literature every week.
The Duckworth campaign, on the other hand, looks like a football team that's on its opponent's two-yard line but doesn't know how to score. Other than a new television ad shot with U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), most of the advertising that's seen for Duckworth is from the Democratic National Committee. And even then it appears on a cable channel, not a local channel that's likely being seen by most of the voters.
This is what happens when your campaign is nearly broke, which is the state of the Duckworth campaign. It's also confused. Someone needs to take Tammy aside and explain to her that the swank lunches and dinners stop the moment she loses the election. She needs to focus on campaigning to win the election -- and that's all.
It also makes me wonder: Do the Democrats really want Tammy to win? I'm not sure what the answer is but if actions are stronger than words, then the Democrats, at the national level, give every appearance of having thrown Tammy overboard so they can focus on elections they can win.
Tammy can't even vote for herself. She lives in Hoffman Estates, a Chicago suburb that's in Illinois' Eighth Congressional District. She'll be able to vote for fellow Democrat Melissa Bean, who will appreciate Tammy's vote because she's in a tight re-election contest against Republican David McSweeney.
If Tammy pulls off this election, it will be in spite of her campaign. But right now, I'm betting on a Roskam victory. It may be marginal but he's going to win.
And then we'll see the usual dribble from the loser. After conceding the election, Tammy will say she'll continue to speak out on the issues. As if anyone will care.
Eight days ahead of the election, Tammy thought it would be a good idea to head to New York to receive an award from Glamour magazine, the Daily Herald reports. There's nothing wrong with the magazine or even accepting the award, unless your opponent, a veteran politician, is pulling out all the stops to ensure his victory --not yours.
Which is exactly what is happening. Peter Roskam, the Republican nominee, was visited yesterday by U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a rock star in American politics. Later this week, Roskam will receive First Lady Laura Bush
The Roskam campaign consistently shows itself to be one very well-organized machine. It has updated its television advertisements and sends new literature every week.
The Duckworth campaign, on the other hand, looks like a football team that's on its opponent's two-yard line but doesn't know how to score. Other than a new television ad shot with U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), most of the advertising that's seen for Duckworth is from the Democratic National Committee. And even then it appears on a cable channel, not a local channel that's likely being seen by most of the voters.
This is what happens when your campaign is nearly broke, which is the state of the Duckworth campaign. It's also confused. Someone needs to take Tammy aside and explain to her that the swank lunches and dinners stop the moment she loses the election. She needs to focus on campaigning to win the election -- and that's all.
It also makes me wonder: Do the Democrats really want Tammy to win? I'm not sure what the answer is but if actions are stronger than words, then the Democrats, at the national level, give every appearance of having thrown Tammy overboard so they can focus on elections they can win.
Tammy can't even vote for herself. She lives in Hoffman Estates, a Chicago suburb that's in Illinois' Eighth Congressional District. She'll be able to vote for fellow Democrat Melissa Bean, who will appreciate Tammy's vote because she's in a tight re-election contest against Republican David McSweeney.
If Tammy pulls off this election, it will be in spite of her campaign. But right now, I'm betting on a Roskam victory. It may be marginal but he's going to win.
And then we'll see the usual dribble from the loser. After conceding the election, Tammy will say she'll continue to speak out on the issues. As if anyone will care.
Friday, October 27, 2006
GOP Fights for Roskam
Worried that the hotly contested Congressional race for Illinois Sixth District seat is far from locked up is bringing out the heavy hitters from the Republican party next week.
First Lady Laura Bush will campaign for Peter Roskam, who seeks to keep the Congressional seat in Republican hands. And U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) will also make an appearance next week for Mr. Roskam, attempting to show that Republicans of all stripes have more in common with one another than they do with a moderate Democrat like Tammy Duckworth, who's seeking an upset victory.
The Daily Herald reports that both candidates are in a "neck-and-neck race."
McCain's visit is considered controversial because Roskam doesn't support the illegal immigration bill that the Senator co-sponsored. Ms. Duckworth, however, supports the legislation.
This race, while interesting, is pretty boring. While both candidates led clean personal lives, neither is all that exciting. They're only separated by their ideas.
Duckworth does her best to come across as a moderate Democrat while Roskam is a GOP candidate in the mold Henry Hyde, the Congressional seat's current occupant.
It will be interesting to see if the Democrats respond in kind during the final days of the campaign by having some of their heavy hitters also make an appearance on Duckworth's behalf. Stay tuned.
First Lady Laura Bush will campaign for Peter Roskam, who seeks to keep the Congressional seat in Republican hands. And U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) will also make an appearance next week for Mr. Roskam, attempting to show that Republicans of all stripes have more in common with one another than they do with a moderate Democrat like Tammy Duckworth, who's seeking an upset victory.
The Daily Herald reports that both candidates are in a "neck-and-neck race."
McCain's visit is considered controversial because Roskam doesn't support the illegal immigration bill that the Senator co-sponsored. Ms. Duckworth, however, supports the legislation.
This race, while interesting, is pretty boring. While both candidates led clean personal lives, neither is all that exciting. They're only separated by their ideas.
Duckworth does her best to come across as a moderate Democrat while Roskam is a GOP candidate in the mold Henry Hyde, the Congressional seat's current occupant.
It will be interesting to see if the Democrats respond in kind during the final days of the campaign by having some of their heavy hitters also make an appearance on Duckworth's behalf. Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)