Representative Bart Stupack,(D-Mi), announced yesterday that, after 9 terms in Congress, he would not seek re-election in the Fall. He gave the usual reason for his decision not to run. He wants to spend more time with his family. He denies he has chosen not to run because of growing animosity and increasing opposition toward him in his district. Interestingly, Stupack is identified as one of the more conservative Democrats in the House. He was also instrumental in getting the Health Care Reform bill through Congress.
According to some recent predictions, Republicans are likely to pick up seven seats in the Senate, 20 seats in the House, and 3 governorships. Republicans are feeling better than they have in a long time regarding the Fall elections. According to the Rasmussen Reports, 48% of the public now believes that republicans are better on the economy than democrats. 45% think democrats are better. Senator Majority Leader Harry Ried is now viewed unfavorably by by 56% of voters in his state. Rep. Nancy Pelosi is viewed unfavorably by 64% in her district. Last month, 63% of voters polled said they were dissatisfied with Congress. Congress is overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats. If you consider that unhappy voters are more likely to turn out than contented voters, things look even less promising for Democrats in the Fall.
Interestingly, President Obama has so far only appeared at one rally in support of Democratic candidates. Perhaps this is due to the growing public discontent over massive spending, increased government control, and the failure of the administration to turn the economy around. It is just as likely that this is due to public unease at the many takeovers and bailouts made by the government over the last two years. All are programs closely associated with Obama. No doubt Obama's herculean efforts to get his health care plan through Congress also plays a large part in the growing dissatisfaction with Washington and the reluctance of many candidates to appear with him. Only 42% of voters approve of the new health care plan. 53% disapprove. Whatever the case, Obama is not quite the political asset he once was.
The hope that Obama inspired when he was elected is starting to turn into gloom under the swelling deficits, stagnant economy, and the heavy hand of democrats in Congress. Despite the trillion plus dollars spent by democrats in Washington to "stimulate" the economy, the economy is still struggling. Little progress has been made on difficult foreign policy issues. True, Obama has won a Nobel Peace Prize and just signed a new deal with Russia limiting nuclear weapons, but Iran and North Korea remain defiant. The troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan persist. No progress has been made in the Middle East. And China remains an enigmatic and growing rival in Asia and is beginning to cast glances around the world.
Obama has had two years to validate the hope he inspired and bring about the change he pledged. He has not done so. The hope he offered has not been transformed into reality but has become apprehension. Partisan rancor is high. The change Obama promised has disappeared into a swamp of backroom deals, bribes, and political maneuvering. The transparency pledged by Obama after his election has become opaque.
The way things are going, the Republicans will have a lot to run on in the next election. The Democrats will have to run on what they have done: and what they have done is not very popular. Despite the bold promises of the Obama administration and democrats in Washington, little has changed. If anything, things have gotten worse. It has turned out that Obama is not the savior many had hoped he would be. He is simply a politician, albeit a very good one. The Democrats have had firm control in Washington for two years. They will not be able to blame Republicans, though they certainly will try. Obama has little to help democrats with at this point except his charm. That still might be enough.
From the early polls, it appears that Obama and the democrats have only 6 more months to change the world. After that, they will have to negotiate.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
"Sensible" Immigration Reform.
This morning, supporters for immigration reform announced they will be holding a rally in Dallas. It was stated that the purpose of the rally will be to urge support for "comprehensive, sensible and feasible" immigration reform. They hope to draw 100,000 for the event.
Because the group is advocating for a "sensible" and "feasible" immigration policy, it is implied that those opposed to such reform are irrational and unrealistic. The specific immigration reforms sought by the group were not mentioned but it is safe to assume they will be urging policy more amenable to immigrants and immigration than the irrational and unrealistic policies they claim are being advocated by those who are upset at the tide of immigration that has swept the nation.
This begs the question of what exactly constitutes a sensible and realistic immigration policy. That is precisely what the debate over immigration is about. Advocates for immigration are certain that their policies are realistic and fair. Their opponents are just as certain in their position. Such debates cannot be settled through rallies and protest marches. They are best settled through the ballot box. The problem for immigration advocacy groups is that when the issue is left to voters, more often than not voters disapprove of immigration on the scale we are experiencing today. Because of this, pro immigration groups are reluctant to rely on elections and voters to bolster their position. It is also a significant reason why they often attempt to portray opponents of immigration as racists and xenophobes. Certainly policy should not be left to such people.
There should be a discussion about immigration and what policy should be in regard to it. Unlike many supporters of immigration, I am inclined to believe the issue should be left to voters to decide whenever possible. It is their communities which are affected by immigration. It is they who must bear the burdens and suffer the turmoil caused by shifting demographics. Contrary to popular misconceptions, the vast majority of those who are concerned about the effect of immigration on the scale we are witnessing today are not xenophobes, jingoists, or racists. They are regular people holding jobs, paying bills, and raising families. They are the ones who pay the costs of unchecked immigration. Yet they are the ones most often excluded from the debate. They are the ones that, when they express their reservations or apprehensions about immigration, are likely to be chastised as hateful or ignorant.
The exclusion of citizens from the immigration debate only fuels resentment towards the issue. That resentment sometimes boils over into protests. Where those protests are well organized they will often be portrayed as being machinated by selfish, hard hearted, and quite possibly racist elements. When the protests are motley or disorganized expressions of anti-immigration sentiments, it will be argued that most, if not all protesters are acting from ignorance, dark motives and prejudice.
It is citizens and communities that bear the greatest burden when it comes to immigration. They should have a say. But, as is often the case, the citizens are not trusted to act in accordance with the ambitions and desires of activists. Elections and referendums are to be avoided whenever the results sought are in doubt. In such cases, it is best to cut out the middle man and go straight to the statehouse. If the state house proves unsympathetic to the cause, policy should be taken to the court house. When citizens are excluded from political debate, resentment and frustration can be counted on. That frustration and resentment in turn will be used against the public by pro immigration groups when they portray themselves as struggling against an intolerant society.
When elections cannot be counted on to achieve desired policy, other methods must be found. It is near certain that the rallies and protests planned are not intended to woo or change the minds of voters. The audience for such protests will be the media and the state house. If the marches and protests succeed, the public will read about the new policy in the newspaper. By then it will be too late for them to do much about it. Voters are rarely asked for their opinion on what constitutes rational and sensible immigration policy. More often they are told.
Because the group is advocating for a "sensible" and "feasible" immigration policy, it is implied that those opposed to such reform are irrational and unrealistic. The specific immigration reforms sought by the group were not mentioned but it is safe to assume they will be urging policy more amenable to immigrants and immigration than the irrational and unrealistic policies they claim are being advocated by those who are upset at the tide of immigration that has swept the nation.
This begs the question of what exactly constitutes a sensible and realistic immigration policy. That is precisely what the debate over immigration is about. Advocates for immigration are certain that their policies are realistic and fair. Their opponents are just as certain in their position. Such debates cannot be settled through rallies and protest marches. They are best settled through the ballot box. The problem for immigration advocacy groups is that when the issue is left to voters, more often than not voters disapprove of immigration on the scale we are experiencing today. Because of this, pro immigration groups are reluctant to rely on elections and voters to bolster their position. It is also a significant reason why they often attempt to portray opponents of immigration as racists and xenophobes. Certainly policy should not be left to such people.
There should be a discussion about immigration and what policy should be in regard to it. Unlike many supporters of immigration, I am inclined to believe the issue should be left to voters to decide whenever possible. It is their communities which are affected by immigration. It is they who must bear the burdens and suffer the turmoil caused by shifting demographics. Contrary to popular misconceptions, the vast majority of those who are concerned about the effect of immigration on the scale we are witnessing today are not xenophobes, jingoists, or racists. They are regular people holding jobs, paying bills, and raising families. They are the ones who pay the costs of unchecked immigration. Yet they are the ones most often excluded from the debate. They are the ones that, when they express their reservations or apprehensions about immigration, are likely to be chastised as hateful or ignorant.
The exclusion of citizens from the immigration debate only fuels resentment towards the issue. That resentment sometimes boils over into protests. Where those protests are well organized they will often be portrayed as being machinated by selfish, hard hearted, and quite possibly racist elements. When the protests are motley or disorganized expressions of anti-immigration sentiments, it will be argued that most, if not all protesters are acting from ignorance, dark motives and prejudice.
It is citizens and communities that bear the greatest burden when it comes to immigration. They should have a say. But, as is often the case, the citizens are not trusted to act in accordance with the ambitions and desires of activists. Elections and referendums are to be avoided whenever the results sought are in doubt. In such cases, it is best to cut out the middle man and go straight to the statehouse. If the state house proves unsympathetic to the cause, policy should be taken to the court house. When citizens are excluded from political debate, resentment and frustration can be counted on. That frustration and resentment in turn will be used against the public by pro immigration groups when they portray themselves as struggling against an intolerant society.
When elections cannot be counted on to achieve desired policy, other methods must be found. It is near certain that the rallies and protests planned are not intended to woo or change the minds of voters. The audience for such protests will be the media and the state house. If the marches and protests succeed, the public will read about the new policy in the newspaper. By then it will be too late for them to do much about it. Voters are rarely asked for their opinion on what constitutes rational and sensible immigration policy. More often they are told.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Trouble in Kyrgyzstan
Turmoil in Kyrgyzstan is growing. It was reported today that opposition forces have seized power. The U.S. is concerned. It has a major military base there that is important to the wars it is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The unrest in Kyrgyzstan threatens U.S. interests in the region. Apart from its convenient location and usefulness to U.S. war efforts, why should the U.S. be concerned with Kyrgyzstan? What are U.S. interests there? Many will hear about the trouble in Kyrgyzstan, some might even read about it. How many know where it is? Why should a plumber in Houston care what happens in Kyrgyzstan?
Kyrgyzstan has a population roughly 1/5th that of Texas. Its size is roughly 1/5 that of Texas as well. Kyrgyzstan's GDP is less than 1/10th that of Texas. Still, Kyrgyzstan is vital to the U.S. It does not have nuclear weapons even though its neighbors do. Still, Kyrgyzstan is important to the U.S. The loss of its support would hobble U.S. military activities in the region, but would not threaten them. Perhaps one reason for the concern is that it would be one less place on the map where the Pentagon can pin an American flag, and it is important for a U.S. flag to be pinned there.
Kyrgyzstan may be important to the U.S., but the importance of the U.S. to Kyrgyzstan is not so obvious. Despite frequent statements by the U.S. that its only goal in the region is to fight terrorism and advance the cause of democracy, its actions often bely its words. Certainly lip service is paid to "democratically" elected leaders, but in reality, a strong man will do in a pinch, as long as he is our strong man.
The U.S. hydra is such that even a small, landlocked nation of 5 1/2 million in central Asia finds itself entangled in U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. claims it is obligated to involve itself in the affairs of nations and people across the globe. But when it comes down to it, we intervene because we can. American involvement is usually heralded as noble and self sacrificing. At times, U.S. interests coincide with regional interests, at least those whose interests we intervene to support. Less often, it is announced that the intervention was done in our interests. But sometimes U.S. interests consist of little more than maintaining its interests. When U.S. interests conflict with the interests and desires of other governments and people, animosity towards the U.S. can be counted on.
If the U.S. throws its lot in with the government in Kyrgyzstan and the uprising is successful, the new government will resent the U.S. for supporting its enemies. If the government prevails, the defeated rebels will resent the U.S. for the aid it provided to the government and we will have earned their enmity. The opposition is already accusing the U.S. of abetting the government. Perhaps even a new terrorist network will take root. If the U.S. supports the opposition and the opposition fails, there will be another nation hostile to the U.S. and its interests in the region.
When the U.S. looks at a map of the world, it sees opportunity and danger. From one pole to the other, there is nothing, no one, and no place outside the interest and grasp of the U.S. Because of this, the U.S. will always find new causes and with them, new foes and enemies. Every once in a while, the U.S. should reflect on what is truly in its interests and what isn't. And, when we identify our true interests, we should mind them and leave the interests of other nations to other nations.
Swiss soldiers are not dying in Afghanistan. Swedish soldiers are not dying in Iraq. U.S. soldiers are dying there. The reason U.S. soldiers are dying there is that it was deemed to be in the interests of the U.S. to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. This decision was arrived at because everything touches on U.S interests, whether in Africa, Asia, or Central America. It would be naive to accept the argument that we invaded two counties and overthrew their governments because of a terrorist attack. That was only one factor. The other, and larger factor, was that it was felt that it would be a good opportunity to establish two new democracies in the region and further expand our interests and opportunities. And we all know how well that is turning out.
Let us hope that for every one's sake, the U.S. does not try to bring democracy to Kyrgyzstan. Military bases are a poor reason to involve oneself in a foreign country's internal affairs. It certainly in is the U.S.'s interest to have a pro western government in Kyrgyzstan. The question remains whether it is in Kyrgyzstan's interest. That question is not for the U.S. to decide. The U.S. says it wants the conflict to end peacefully. The question is whose peace? A peace favorable of the U.S. interests? Or a peace hostile to them? To imply the U.S. has no stake in the conflict is dishonest. The global nature of U.S. interests guarantees that the U.S. will have a stake in almost every conflict.
As inconvenient as the loss of military bases might be to the U.S., it is a problem more easily overcome by the U.S. than having a new antagonist in the region.
Kyrgyzstan has a population roughly 1/5th that of Texas. Its size is roughly 1/5 that of Texas as well. Kyrgyzstan's GDP is less than 1/10th that of Texas. Still, Kyrgyzstan is vital to the U.S. It does not have nuclear weapons even though its neighbors do. Still, Kyrgyzstan is important to the U.S. The loss of its support would hobble U.S. military activities in the region, but would not threaten them. Perhaps one reason for the concern is that it would be one less place on the map where the Pentagon can pin an American flag, and it is important for a U.S. flag to be pinned there.
Kyrgyzstan may be important to the U.S., but the importance of the U.S. to Kyrgyzstan is not so obvious. Despite frequent statements by the U.S. that its only goal in the region is to fight terrorism and advance the cause of democracy, its actions often bely its words. Certainly lip service is paid to "democratically" elected leaders, but in reality, a strong man will do in a pinch, as long as he is our strong man.
The U.S. hydra is such that even a small, landlocked nation of 5 1/2 million in central Asia finds itself entangled in U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. claims it is obligated to involve itself in the affairs of nations and people across the globe. But when it comes down to it, we intervene because we can. American involvement is usually heralded as noble and self sacrificing. At times, U.S. interests coincide with regional interests, at least those whose interests we intervene to support. Less often, it is announced that the intervention was done in our interests. But sometimes U.S. interests consist of little more than maintaining its interests. When U.S. interests conflict with the interests and desires of other governments and people, animosity towards the U.S. can be counted on.
If the U.S. throws its lot in with the government in Kyrgyzstan and the uprising is successful, the new government will resent the U.S. for supporting its enemies. If the government prevails, the defeated rebels will resent the U.S. for the aid it provided to the government and we will have earned their enmity. The opposition is already accusing the U.S. of abetting the government. Perhaps even a new terrorist network will take root. If the U.S. supports the opposition and the opposition fails, there will be another nation hostile to the U.S. and its interests in the region.
When the U.S. looks at a map of the world, it sees opportunity and danger. From one pole to the other, there is nothing, no one, and no place outside the interest and grasp of the U.S. Because of this, the U.S. will always find new causes and with them, new foes and enemies. Every once in a while, the U.S. should reflect on what is truly in its interests and what isn't. And, when we identify our true interests, we should mind them and leave the interests of other nations to other nations.
Swiss soldiers are not dying in Afghanistan. Swedish soldiers are not dying in Iraq. U.S. soldiers are dying there. The reason U.S. soldiers are dying there is that it was deemed to be in the interests of the U.S. to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. This decision was arrived at because everything touches on U.S interests, whether in Africa, Asia, or Central America. It would be naive to accept the argument that we invaded two counties and overthrew their governments because of a terrorist attack. That was only one factor. The other, and larger factor, was that it was felt that it would be a good opportunity to establish two new democracies in the region and further expand our interests and opportunities. And we all know how well that is turning out.
Let us hope that for every one's sake, the U.S. does not try to bring democracy to Kyrgyzstan. Military bases are a poor reason to involve oneself in a foreign country's internal affairs. It certainly in is the U.S.'s interest to have a pro western government in Kyrgyzstan. The question remains whether it is in Kyrgyzstan's interest. That question is not for the U.S. to decide. The U.S. says it wants the conflict to end peacefully. The question is whose peace? A peace favorable of the U.S. interests? Or a peace hostile to them? To imply the U.S. has no stake in the conflict is dishonest. The global nature of U.S. interests guarantees that the U.S. will have a stake in almost every conflict.
As inconvenient as the loss of military bases might be to the U.S., it is a problem more easily overcome by the U.S. than having a new antagonist in the region.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)