Tag: Politics

Over on the evangelical outpost Joe Carter is blogging about the situation in Afghanistan, where Abdul Rahman is awaiting sentencing for converting to Christianity.  Read the full story from Cybercast News Service here.  You can review the Afghan constitution and see just why this is possible.

This story is bringing to people’s attention just what it is that we have wound up supporting in some countries in the middle east.  But what I’m wondering is just what did we expect?  I don’t care how often they declare adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, fundamenatlist Muslims do not, and cannot support these types of rights.  What’s more, they don’t want to.  I want to make it clear here that I’m not making a general attack on Islam.  I do know of moderate Muslims who believe that their faith supports human rights, and who really mean it.  The problem is that in general those are not the people who are in charge of governments in the Middle East.

I’m a veteran of Desert Shield and Desert Storm.  We were stationed in Saudi Arabia, where women are not allowed to drive (from the UDHR, “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex . . “), and where it was often impractical for the women in our armed forces to drive in the city of Riyadh.  They could do so in the outlying areas, where generally nobody knew.  We complained about the inhumanity of Saddam Hussein’s regime, and I certain make no excuses for his behavior, but in many ways Iraq was the freer society.

I think that many Americans really don’t comprehend just what type of a society Saudi Arabia is, and what type of a country Afghanistan will be under its own government.  We need to realize that what is happening in these countries is not good.  I’m not interested in the actual numbers of Muslims who take which approach to their religion and to politics based on that.  Whenever and wherever one person’s political views result in someone being imprisoned and threatened with death because of his or her beliefs, that’s too radical for me.  We should be angry simply because someone was imprisoned and tried for such a “crime.”

But again, what could we expect?  We move in to impose democracy on these countries, and the majority vote for the these types of governments on a regular basis.  Since we are so determined that democracy is the right way to go for everyone, we are going to be stuck with such conclusions.  I’ve heard people wonder why we got a majority Shi’ite government in Iraq.  Just look at the demographics!  It was bound to happen.  I guess what we really want is democracy, but a democracy in which people vote for what we want them to vote for.

This is the problem with the “sweetness and light” explanation for our military activities “over there” at least since the first gulf war.  I was certainly in no doubt about our purpose over there at that time.  It was simply unthinkable to have Saddam Hussein in charge of that much oil.  But we don’t have the guts to admit that we expended the lives of patriotic young Americans for oil, so instead we invent humanitarian reasons for the fight.  And in the Middle East, it’s pretty easy to find humanitarian reasons why a government should be removed from office.  The problem is finding good reasons to support the one you want to ally yourself with.

If Americans will really look at this closely, I believe we’ll see that we’ve been led down the garden path by the war propaganda.  If we went into Afghanistan to catch Al-Qaeda terrorists, then fine.  We should judge the result based on how many terrorists we caught, and how much terrorist operations were disrupted.  On the other hand if we went into Afghanistan to create a western style democracy and bring human rights to the people, then we would have to judge our results on that basis–and those results would be miserable.

I think we do need to look at militant, fundamentalist Islam as an enemy movement. They want to make us all Muslims. I am concerned also about Christian reconstructionists, though they have not resorted to violence. It is not the religion itself that concerns me, but the willingness to apply force in order to accomplish those religious goals. We need to view this as a war between freedom and oppression, between a secular society in which we are all free to make spiritual choices, and a religious dictatorship. Whatever your faith, I count you a friend if you support my right to make free choices in spiritual matters. I count you an enemy if you think I must be forced into a particular faith. I honestly don’t know whether that’s liberal, conservative or moderate. But I do think it’s right.

(Personally, I think other countries should be permitted to deal with their own affairs. But in these cases, we’re helping them. I don’t think it’s right that we help people violate our most serious values. Let me just add a hint here: If the war aims include “they all lived happily ever after” then you’re probably dealing with a fairy-tale scenario.)

When we go to war, we need to know why. We need to know what we intend to accomplish. We need to judge the results by whether or not we accomplished what we set out to do. That is the only way we can make the expenditure of lives and resources worthwhile, and the only way we, the American people, can judge whether our leaders have been good stewards of those resources. I fully believe that there can be justification for war. There can be good reasons to expend human life in the pursuit of our national and international goals. But when the commodity expended is human lives, then we need to be all the much more careful and honest in judging the stewardship.

Change is a feature of the modern world.  This has practically become a cliche.  We have become used to technological change, though we’re still not certain how to deal with it.  But there is political change as well, and transportation and communications together tend to speed political change.  Newsweek calls attention to one aspect of change in an article titled Putin’s China Problem.

To political analysts, this development was probably not a surprise.  After all, it would be extremely surprising if Russia, formerly a superpower in at least equal partnership (or enmity) in dealing with international issues, would passively allow all of its power to slip away.  There are relatively few options for Russia in seeking power in the world, and China was the obvious option.  It’s not certain that the China relationship will be a plus.  As things stand, Russia could wind up a junior partner in a Chinese sphere of influence.

In the same way, Bush’s India trip was certain a likely, if not necessary move, providing the United States with alternative partners in the region.  One wonders when Vietnam will be given consideration for a similar detente?  China’s dominance can hardly be palatable to them.

But I’m not really an analyst of international affairs.  The reason this story caught my eye was simply the increased complexity of world affairs.  At the same time American voters are generally uninterested in international affairs, and also generally not that well educated.  International affairs commonly rate very low in importance on various polls, except for counter-terrorism activities (see, for example, this Fox News Poll).

Changes are likely to come even faster in the future, and to be more international in character.  It’s no longer going to be adequate to know only the home issues.  Which brings me to my favorite topic:  Education.  We are struggling with an educational system that has a very hard time keeping up with these changes, particularly in technology, which costs money.  Knowledge of the world is still extremely limited amongst most of our voters.  If we don’t improve and update our educational system, we will very quickly find ourselves losing the title of the world’s last superpower.

I would like to suggest a complete review of our educational process in America.  Right now we are training people for a world situation that doesn’t exist.  Everything in the educational system needs to be examined with the question of whether it contributes to making a student a good citizen and whether it prepares that student for life and work.  Then we need to put the right resources into the right place.

And it will be critical to think bigger than the local community.  Things happening in Siberia and China will have an impact on our lives, and that impact will come sooner rather than later.  Let’s not let it be a surprise.

Eleanor Clift in Newsweek has a new column, Dem Feingold Tosses GOP a Life Raft, in which she points out that Feingold’s bid to censure Bush is not good political strategy. It certainly is not, and especially for any politician or political party that is trying to reach out to the center. I’m a passionate moderate, and this kind of thing makes me run looking for someone else. Unfortunately, we are very short on “someone elses” in politics right now.

I think we need to look beyond the politicians to find out what the problem actually is with government in this country. In the same article, clift points out that 50% in a Wall Street Journal/NBC survey indicate that they would like the democrats to control congress. I think there is a big problem with that number, or any number that simply states what party we want to control congress. Because the parties are so diverse at this point, it can only be the result of a vague feeling we have about the two parties, and not a principled choice of particular candidates.

In my own congressional district, I’m never sure which party I want to hold the seat until I know who has been nominated. My feeling about the national Republican or Democratic parties (usually very negative) doesn’t really play much in the decision. The question is whether this person will represent me and this district well in congress. But there is clearly a body of people in this country, large enough body of people in this country to sway elections, who are going to vote based on how they feel about a party. I say that because the politicians keep on winning, and they keep on playing games. The Republicans did it with Clinton, and now the Democrats are doing it with Bush.

I’d like to be able to say that if either party wants to truly win the center, they will need to start behaving responsibly, as a party. In fact, however, I’m afraid I’d probably be wrong. The evidence is that politicians get elected by behaving like politicians. Both parties engage in this type of petty behavior, and both continue to have success with it. The primaries continue to produce the same type of candidates.

That pushes the problem back to us, the people. Why is it that we allow our opinions to be swayed so much by the latest shenanigans of either party? Why is it that a politician that manages to smear his opponent best with negative ads can win? Why is it that politicians must avoid specifics about what they would do in office, resorting instead to vague generalities?

I believe it’s because we, the people, don’t have the patience to really study the issues, and then choose the person who has the best grasp of them, and who reflects our values. What we vote for is the person who can give the best impression of supporting our values without tying himself down too much.

That’s how we get politicians who promise major educational reforms without ever spending more money.

That’s how a politician can say with a straight face that he will increase services and decrease taxes, and what’s more, get re-elected after failing to do it!

If we, the people, don’t spend more time studying the issues, making intelligent choices, and then expecting our politicians to do likewise, we will continue to get the type of government we currently have, in which politicians spar over petty things instead of grappling with serious issues in a serious way.

Anderson cooper is blogging over on CNN getting ready for a program on a case that’s being called “Roe v. Wade for men.” The idea is that a man should have a choice about having a child, and about whether he should have to pay child support. I suppose there’s going to be a long discussion complete with handwringing and emotion, but I’m not going to watch.

But let me give you one more links, to a story that has all the details in one place. Men’s activists launch ‘Roe v. Wade for Men’says a story on MSNBC.com.

The story says that a group calling itself the National Center for Men is supporting this lawsuit. I don’t usually get this annoyed at a story. But is this the national center for men, or is it perhaps the national center for irresponsibility?

This guy had a choice. He could choose whether or not to have the fun of making the baby. Now he wants out of the responsibility that results. I hear his arguments about the woman having the choice of an abortion. But I would make two points about that. First, even if one does support abortion rights, the situation of the man and the woman when pregnancy occurs is hardly comparable. But second, one type of irresponsibility is not the solution to another.

Let me note simply that my position on the moral issues of abortion is different than my position on the legal issues. I think the proper moral place to make choices about reproduction is before you engage in sexual activity that might produce a pregnancy. This is true for the man or the woman. After that, your moral choices are different. At the same time I do believe that the best approach to preventing abortion is through education and support. By this I mean education in making responsible choices, and the necessary social support when the right choice, or for that matter when the wrong choice is made.

In this case, the woman has made a responsible choice, and the man wants permission to make an irresponsible one. Well, he can. He can irresponsibly decide not to pay child support, and then like anyone else who doesn’t face his responsibilities, he can face the legal consequences.

In an opinion piece in Newsweek, titled Perception is Everything, Eleanor Clift comments that due to the fumbling of the Bush administration on several issues, scandals in congress, and the resulting low approval ratings for the Bush administration, all that may be necessary for the Democrats to sweep congress would be just to show up. “But when a party is in as much trouble as the Republicans, the Woody
Allen line takes hold: ‘Eighty percent of success is showing up.’ For
the Democrats, that may be enough.”

I tend to agree with her about the problems that the Republicans are having. In many cases, such as the ports deal, I actually agree with the Bush administration’s stance, but it is hard to see how a reasonably competent White House staff could have failed to realize that this would be massively controversial and somehow manage to handle it better. The handling of aftermath of Hurricane Katrina has also been a major disaster in itself, both on the ground and in terms of public relations.

As a moderate, I have some policy issues with the administration, but I also have some issues with the Democrats. (I’m an independent–very independent.) But what I would expect of an administration of either party is the ability to govern. The Bush administration is beginning to look rather weak on that point. But I don’t see the Democrats looking any better, and I don’t agree that it will be enough for the Democrats “just to show up.”

I believe that if John Kerry had managed to convey some sort of plan to deal with terrorism, and some sort of determination to carry it out, he would have beaten Bush in the last election. President Bush’s numbers were low then (though not as low as they are now), and people were questioning his leadership and his competence. The problem was that people also questioned whether Kerry was going to do any better, and he failed to be convincing where he needed to be. Going just on my non-scientific survey of friends and folks I talk to about politics, their question was just what would electing Kerry mean to the war on terror. He was going to use the military, though less than Bush, but how much less was not defined. He was going to use more diplomacy, but just how that worked was undefined.

I really suspect political advisors who were telling Senator Kerry to stay undefined so he couldn’t be attacked on the issue. But when you’re trying to get fearful people to swap out who is in charge, you’ve got to do more than protect yourself from criticism. You have to make them feel that you can make them safer. And politicians should be aware that, whatever someone says about priorities, terrorism can jump out to become the #1 issue in a moment.

The same thing is likely to apply in November, with an added problem–incumbency. Polls generally show that while people really despise congress, they generally like their congressman. Republicans have the majority of incumbents. To change that, some people will have to be convinced that the Democrats running in their districts will do a substantially better job. And that’s going to require something that is both substantial and is well sold, such as the Contract with America in 1994 that Swift mentions. The Democrats will have to come up with something that will bring not only their base, but new voters and those who are undecided.

Politicians should know that there are a substantial number of voters like me–independent and moderate. You can’t get our votes by scare tactics about the other side. You can’t get our votes by just showing up. We’re waiting to be convinced.

Right now, neither party is being very convincing.

UPDATE:  Added link to Eleanor Clift’s Newsweek article.