Campaign 2012 -- Let The Games Begin! Part 2

As mentioned in Part 1 of this particular posting, last week’s Republican debate signaled that our country is about to enter another long presidential campaign season (or is that seasons?). And as a dyed-in-the-wool cynic when it comes to political observation, it would be nice to see a change of pace from the usual big money influence, series of spoken half-truths, lies, political pandering, sanctimony, and the implication that my ideology is better than yours when it comes to running the country. As I’ve always said, America should be governed based on the principles of need, not by ideology. To that effect, government has the potential as well as the resources to help in some quarters, but can be a hindrance in others. Despite this reality, the politicians we elect either adopt or reject this reality—extremely in some cases—due to their inability to think beyond the narrow ideological interpretations they hold, self-interests, the interests of whatever socioeconomic, political, or organization they belong to, and/or a combination of these reasons. Additionally, with most elected officials at the federal level seemingly betrothed to Special Interests and the dollars they flood into the coffers of these politicians, we Americans are left with the non-choice of candidates that know will inevitably work against the collective interests. So all we can do is watch debates like the GOP presidential debate in New Hampshire last week and make a best guess which candidate will make a half-way decent president based on their performance and the stances they take on various issues.

Ron Paul
Polling at only 7% likely Republican voters (NBC/Wall Street Journal Pool, week of 06/11/11), Texas Congressman Ron Paul’s libertarian-tinged message has some support among elements of conservative voters as well as some independents tired of [the] more traditional choices when it comes to presidential contenders. Perhaps his overall message is best summed up as libertarian with hints of pragmatic conservatism; the “legalization of freedom.” His low polling among conservatives overall, but popularity among segments (exemplified by his win of the straw poll of likely Republican candidates at last week’s Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans) gives him a half-hearted appeal among likely voters. Admittedly, much of his message makes a great deal of sense, so its understood why of the individuals his message resonates with adopt a “I-like-this-about-him-but-not-that” attitude.

For example, on the subject of marriage—both gay and straight—he refuses to support legislation which bans or legalizes gay marriage because he believes that marriage should be sanctioned through a church. In fact, he believes that anything having to do with relationships should definitely not be dealt with on the federal level, and that states should decide what they want. Ultimately, he is of the opinion that a license for any marriage through government should not be necessary because marriage is a religious matter. However, not only does this position put him at odds with Christian Conservatives, a main constituent base for Republicans, but is not practical (at least for heterosexual couples) given that government recognizes the partnership of marriage for legalities involving consideration of financial benefits, inheritance, asset division/recognition, etc. As I stated in part 1, common sense dictates that the Founding Fathers could not have remotely considered that two adults of the same sex would want to marry one another, so in that respect, Paul is correct. There should not be any federal legislation in regards to the recognition that a marriage is between a man and a woman…it just goes without saying. He believes that government has no business in economic or social relationships.
While on the subject of homosexuality, Paul is on record as being against laws at the federal level restricting rights to individuals thus he voted to repeal "Don't Ask Don't Tell" in the military (he believes that homosexuals shouldn't be discharged if they are not causing a disruption. His “legalization of freedom” approach towards homosexuality carries over to other libertarian beliefs he holds, and he has called for the legalization of drugs and prostitution.

On abortion, he believes that aborting a child is an act of violence and should not be funded on a federal level. But unlike most political conservatives, he believes that states should decide whether or not abortion should be legal. I become nervous whenever a politician passes the buck to states to determine laws which have such far reaching social impact as abortion; handing states a disproportionate amount of power to make such laws is why the Articles of Confederation didn’t work, as such an extreme practice of federalism renders the central government impotent. This would have to be the inevitable result of Paul’s view of America, as he proposes to eliminate many federal agencies, including the Departments of Education, Energy, and Homeland Security. States, many of them already financially strapped, cannot handle so much implied delegation of traditionally federal responsibilities.
On the economy, Paul said that he would cut military spending and foreign involvement in order to trim the deficit. In addition, he believes that we could eliminate the income tax (I’m loving this) if we drastically cut spending, which would cut the influence of special interests in government.
On health care, he has stated that he would repeal the new health care law signed under President Obama, as he thinks it represents more unnecessary “big government.”
Paul, for all the sense he makes on some of the issues, would probably best be served if he were running on a third party. It would detract from his legitimacy as a serious candidate for the presidency, but it would also add to elements of his appeal, such as the perception that he is not the typical Washington insider.

Herman Cain
For all intents and purposes, Herman Cain is what I consider to be the “Anti-Obama.” He’s African-American. But he’s not as politically astute, polished, nor does he project a noticeable amount of the President’s Charisma. He’s pretty much self-made, having worked in business most of his post-Navy life (compared to Obama, who cut his chops working as an activist among Chicago’s politically disenfranchised before being elected to the U.S Senate). He also, like Palin, is adored by many within the Tea party movement as well as many within the Republican Party as a whole. To be totally honest, its hard to consider him a serious contender without the name recognition of other Republican challengers, or having held any political office (his most notable forays into organized politics was his failed 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate seat representing Georgia, and as an advisor on the 1996 presidential campaign of former Senator Bob Dole during his failed run). On some issues, he is quite the conservative, but seems to take a moderate cautious tone on others, especially on foreign affairs.

On abortion, he is steadfastly against the practice, even in cases or rape or incest (although I feel its not my place in such a situation to tell a woman what to do, abortions due to rape and/or incest account for only 1% of the total number of abortions in a given year, so using such a justification to defend the other 99% of women who undergo abortions as a form of retroactive birth control doesn’t seem to hold water. In this respect, Herman’s view may be valid). Furthermore, he believes that Planned Parenthood should not be funded, and has called it a “racist” organization since “75% of their organizations are located in black communities.”
On same-sex marriage, Cain opposes legal recognition of same-sex unions (he believes that marriage is a union between a man and woman only), and believes that homosexuality is a “sin,” as well as a choice. He is on record as opposing the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
On the economy, he embraces the long-held and long-ago debunked myth of trickle down economics; cutting taxes for all businesses will stimulate growth and create jobs. He also thinks that economy stimulus involves eliminating entire programs rather than just trimming budgets.
On health care, he has been opposed to any form of “nationalized” health care since then president Bill Clinton proposed it back in the early 1990s. Like most, he holds the private market sacrosanct when it comes to resolving the dilemma of the millions of uninsured Americans who simply cannot afford protection against the prohibitively expensive health costs.
On foreign policy, Cain has been supportive the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, while opposing withdrawal timetables.
He favors a “diplomatic approach” toward Iran with regards to nuclear disarmament. But he opposes any negotiation with North Korea and opposed the New START treaty with Russia, stating that the US reserves the right to maintain freedom to develop nuclear weapons while maintaining peace through a show of strength.
Finally on energy, Cain favors offshore drilling, while allowing the consumer to choose alternative forms of energy through the private market. This is not an easy position to support, as continual drilling maintains a stagnant technological status quo where America would still be dependent on “black gold” as a primary energy source, and in which we would have to inevitably continue to have to rely on politically unstable regimes in equally unstable regions to supply us.
Cain seems to be an individualistic thinker, but seems to be too driven by his religious convictions (he is an active minister and active member of the National Baptist Convention). Caution should be had here. The last time religious fervor impacted secular government policy, we got Prohibition…and we see how well that worked…
Cain seems to need more experience in affairs of the state before he can be considered a competent contender as a representative of the people. And for goodness sake, leave the religious out of affairs of the state!

To Be Concluded...

Read More

The Iranian Protests...a Historical Primer.

Note: This article was originally published with the American Chronicle on 06/25/09
( link: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/107619)


It’s one of those ironies of life that no matter how much education, experience, or power a person has, they will always seem to make wrong choices…especially when their perceived self-interests or emotions impact these wrong choices. That’s exactly the dynamic we are witnessing as events are playing themselves out in Iran following the residential elections of 2 weeks ago.
Many political leaders from both major ideological branches in America (but most vocally led by conservative Republican Party-affiliated lawmakers) have criticized President Obama for not speaking out more vocally in support of the opposition-led mass protests that have been occurring almost daily in the streets of the Iranian capital, Tehran since the disputed election results over two weeks ago…and the deadly violent government attempts to halt the protests. His rationale rightly so, was that publicly coming out essentially on the side of the Iranian government’s opponents would hand incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a propaganda tool for use to justify both government’s violent response to the protests, and to play to his supporters’ fears that the protests are “proof” of “American intervention” in Iran’s domestic affairs. Indeed, foreign reporters have had their visas revoked, have been threatened with arrest if observed openly reporting on the protests, and government officials such as Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hasan Qashqavi has asserted that the “bias” by which foreign media (e.g., the various Western news outlets such as the American networks and the British BBC) has “exaggerated” the scope of police/protestor clashes and numbers of opposition supporters represents the political stance of those Western governments.
A few days ago on June 20th —maybe as a result or in spite of these criticisms—the president called for the Iranian government to “stop all violent and unjust actions” against the protesters. The full-court pressing by conservative lawmakers seemingly put the president on the defensive; both Arizona Senators John McCain and South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham made the rounds on the Sunday morning talk show circuit to state what amounted to their party’s viewpoint on the president’s hesitant approach on the issue of the unrest in Iran. For his part, Graham, a de facto opponent of all things Obama, stated that “The president of the United States is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it. He's been timid and passive more than I would like."
Yesterday, June 23rd, the president gave an address in the Rose Garden of the White House which, despite protestations to the contrary, seemed to be a capitulation to the pressures of the growing chorus of criticism that his response thus far to the situation in Iran has been too passive. This apparent caving-in to pressure is even more problematic for the president considering that during the 2008 election, he made his intentions clear to at least open the door to a conditional dialogue with the Iranian government, partially in the hopes of assuaging the Iranian government’s quest to acquire nuclear capability—a complete 180 degree turn from the previous Bush Administration’s approach of confrontation and military action innuendo. While President Ahmadinejad would have probably won re-election by a slim lead—as he has a substantial level of public support—its obvious that officials went too far in trying to portray his re-election as consensual mandate by the people of Iran; chief opposition candidate, former Prime Minister Hossein Mousavi seemingly “lost” the election overwhelmingly even in his hometown district, an unlikelyhood that is at odds with the numbers of supporters who have gathered in the streets of the capital since the election “results.”
The fraudulent elections, the violent suppression of the mass protests, the propaganda offensive against the opposition and their “Western ‘supporters’” have caged President Obama up his own policy tree in his intentions to deal with the Iranian government. He is now faced with the options of either continuing ahead with his intent to start a dialogue with the Iranian government toward a resolution of the nuclear (weapons) crisis, or abandoning this intent in lieu of the behavior of the Iranian government over the past couple of weeks. On June 15th, 3 days after the disputed elections, the president noted that America would “continue to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries, and we’ll see where it takes us.” But that was before the growing chorus of criticism against his stance on not commenting openly about the election results and the popular response. Undoubtedly, his continual intent to open talks with the Iranian government will create an open sea for his policy opponents within the Republican Party to attack…and the criticisms already unleashed toward his initial response (or lack thereof) have the sharks circling.
These recent events surrounding the question of Iran are somewhat perplexing to me, in a negative sense. I honestly don’t know what’s more annoying…the obvious politicization of protests in a country that has been out of favor with America since the late 1970s, or our woeful ignoring of America’s foreign policy history as it relates to Iran.
In 1953, the CIA was instrumental is squashing the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people when bringing back to power the Shah of Iran. Under an autocracy every bit as suppressive as the current government (and backed by the American government), the Iranian people slowly began to sit aside their differences, and eventually managed to overthrow the regime of the Shah in 1979 by way of popular, non-violent, democratic mass uprisings among the Iranian people, culminating in the popularly renown Islamic Revolution. That resulted in the installation of a government run mostly by religious clerics, who were rabbit adherents of a conservative and strict interpretation of Islamic law that suppresses many civil liberties of the people, purportedly sponsors known terrorist groups, and is openly hostile toward both state America and Israel in particular, and the West in general. That history is what opponents of the current Iranian government hope to see occur now, either through natural internal combustion, or external intervention.
But external intervention—American intervention—is why we currently have an issue with Iran. The election crisis, the nuclear issue, and Iran’s hostility toward the West would probably never have even emerged had the religious government not come to power after 1979. Things could, and probably would be radically different today. Had America opted to promote the emerging democracy in 1953 instead of working selfishly behind the scenes to suppress it, Iran might instead have become a thriving Western-friendly democracy in the Muslim-dominated Middle East.
Any inclination to intervene in the internal affairs of Iran would ignore the lessons of our last intervention there. It’s not a stretch that, given the events that immediately followed the America’s questionable invasion of Iraq, destabilizing the government of Iran could make a bad situation worse. Without the few controls there are under the current regime, more radical elements could rise to power and create a crisis which could make the current ones pale by comparison. In a worse-case scenario, attacking Iran could marshal the support for the radical government in the Muslim world…a place where the US already has precious few friends as it is. Even support for opposing forces within another country limited to vocal support could be a disaster in the making. Who could forget the first President Bush’s urging for the Iraqi people to “rise up” against a militarily defeated Saddam Hussein after the end of the 1991 Gulf War, only to ignore pleas for tangible assistance as what was left of the late Iraqi president’s military machine brutally suppressed the resulting revolt in the country’s Southern region, and killing untold numbers?
It is a rather disconcerting notion that in America, politicians and political leaders can and do politicize such a potentially volatile situation for no other reason than to one-up their political rivals. And yet, those same individuals don’t hesitate to call “expose” someone publicly who they feel engage in the same practice, but under different circumstances, such as the Republican propensity to call traditional Civil Rights activists “race hustlers.” Not only is such a practice philosophically hypocritical, but ignores the possible perils of future repercussions as well as the cautions of ignoring history.
I know it’s a bit idealistic, but we send our representatives to Washington to work in our—the electorate’s—best interests, not their own. They should have the ability to think for us, not work against the interests of the people. And we the people should be smart enough to know what is in our interests, and what is not. Read people. Learn to understand the historical basis for what is occurring in the world! Learn, and think…stop spouting off some party line just because it runs contrary to the party line!

Read More