Thoughts on the debt limit debate in Washington

It has been difficult to watch how polarized U.S. politics has become in recent years, and especially how acrimonious and partisan the debate on the debt ceiling has been in Washington.  Most of all, it has been painful to observe how President Obama seems to have been unable to lead from the front and forge a path forward. The Republican party has instead found a way to force the President into an unseemly compromise on spending cuts and has at the same time appeased its more conservative members who see the world in very simplistic terms.  While most public opinion polls in the U.S. show that Americans prefer a balanced approach to managing the country's finances, an approach which would include taxing the wealthy and reducing military spending, politicians in Washington have so far been unable to craft a deal that matches public opinion. They have focused instead on winning partisan points.  The country's party leaders appear to have sought ideological, self-interested victories instead of focusing on nation-building (or should I say "nation-saving"?).  It appears the crisis has weakened President, who has found it exceedingly difficult to fix the political mess in Washington he said he wanted to clean up when he was elected.

It will be interesting to see, when we look back, whether this crisis proves the President lost his way or whether it shows him to be an understated but sophisticated leader.

More info:

> Ross Douthat writes in The New York Times that Obama is a "diminished president."

>Across the Atlantic, however, Tim Stanley at The Guardian newspaper sees things differently, arguing that Obama "looks like a winner." He says the President's passive approach has paid off and his centrist stance will help him in the next election.

(Check the monthly archives on the right for more posts.)

An appeal for good governance

The 21st century is only a decade old, but it's becoming apparent to me that if we do not devote ourselves to reform our political systems we will face some very hard times. I don't mean to overstate this or sound gloomy, but I believe the crisis is real and global.

The democratic process as we've known it seems to be stagnating before our eyes. The United States is wrestling with doggedly entrenched partisan positions at a time when it should be making difficult decisions and enacting legislation to right a listing ship; in many cases unpleasant medicine is required now for the long term benefit of all. It's the only way the country can hope to stabilize its economy in the face of trillions of dollars in debt and also hope to regain it's leadership position. President Obama has very difficult days ahead of him. In this climate one must wish the occupier of the Oval Office well, whatever one's political persuasion.

Europe is struggling with the effects of a banking crisis that appears to be spreading like an oil spill. Politically, the European Union is trying to hold together a grouping of states whose 19th and 20th century governments need reform. Italy, for example, the country of my birth, has a multiparty system that is desperately in need of improvement, yet it cannot make any progress in enacting change. The present system, too complex, too archaic, only guarantees one thing: constant sniping, and little or no real action in parliament. The judiciary, instead of being independent from the government, finds itself arguing with it and fighting publicly with the Prime Minister. Indecision at the highest levels facilitates corruption and gives organized crime the opportunity to spread its tentacles.

In most Western democracies, the rise of paid lobbyists representing many partisan interests, from corporations to unions to not-for-profit associations, are successfully influencing governments for the sake of narrow interests, often caring little for the benefit of the larger whole.

Where is good governance? How will we make sure our future is sound? These terrible squabbles, all shouting and no listening, the proliferation of public campaigns appealing to and gathering only like-minded people who have no care for fairly examining issues, only in supporting narrow views, no matter what, are creating a dangerous situation for us. No concessions from all sides of the political spectrum, no willingness to expend a little political capital for the greater good.

Without good governance, how are we going to arrange for safety and security and professionally manage foreign policy? The lives of millions of people depend on smart decisions by our elected representatives. Are our politicians doing the right things for a safer world? (See the inherent dangers inherent in the latest WikiLeaks revelations.)

How can governments function in the present situation? The democratic system seems broken. We need to fix it soon.

What can we do to turn politics from being some sort of grand game to a process that effectively represents the interests of the people? We have drifted far from the ideals we profess to uphold. How much are we willing to sacrifice before everything we own, our livelihoods, all of the dreams and aspirations of our children are comprised by dysfunctional politics?

Somehow, we must revive concepts of good citizenship, real public service and political representation for the common good. Maybe we need to create a new system. We need intelligent leaders mandated and capable of making better decisions under more objective terms of office, and somehow freed from the dirty games of partisanship.

I hope that change will be possible.


--------
Related posts:

>On ideas about global government and democracy
>An appeal for better coordination of the global food supply
>Concepts espoused in the U.S. Declaration of Independence

Moving forward on Afghanistan

Watching news coverage on television of the war in Afghanistan, it's hard to get a sense of what progress, if any, is being achieved by Western military forces. We see scenes of soldiers on foot patrol and occasionally interaction between them and local people. Sometimes, we see the aftermath of an improvised explosive device. There have been many civilian casualties. Overall, the military objective of stabilizing the country by ensuring security and winning "the hearts and minds" of the population appears a nearly impossible task. The country is vast and underdeveloped; the local security forces, police and army, too small, susceptible to pressure and corruption; the divisions between tribes, interests and loyalties very hard to overcome.

While safety has been improved in some cities and other areas, it has come at a great cost, in terms of financial resources and human life. Efforts to create national infrastructure have been hampered by corruption, betrayals and the insurgency.

The war in Afghanistan is being played out against a backdrop of high-risk geo-political tension: perceived global threats from fundamentalist religious regimes; the lure and traps of oil revenues; the strategic positions of Western democracies, China and Russia, just to list several issues.

Increasingly, it appears the road to stability in Afghanistan may lie not so much in centralized democratic government, but rather in developing local leadership in the rural areas and assisting people in creating workable alternatives to Taliban rule. We may need to abandon notions of Western-style democracy in Afghanistan. Countries rarely achieve in a few short years what others have developed over hundreds.

Traditionally, people in Afghanistan respond to tribal leaders. Perhaps greater efforts can be directed towards protecting and encouraging these leaders. Moderate religious authority figures, likewise, could be assisted, so that they regain their former standing in their communities. They will also require complete protection from insurgents and their radical form of Islam. None of this will be easy.

Analysts argue that allowing Afghans to determine local solutions to local problems may be a more effective approach to securing the country from the Taliban threat. This will take patience and fortitude. But perhaps Western countries will be seen more as genuine partners than occupiers and invaders, as Taliban propaganda surely labels U.S. and NATO forces.

If such an approach yields results, we should see fewer troops on the ground.


Notes:
For more information on military options in Afghanistan, see Mitchell LaFortune's article in the New York Times. LaFortune served as an intelligence analyst with the 82nd Airborne Division in two tours of duty in the country.

See also Thomas L. Friedman's backgrounder on the global perspective on the war. It's a revealing behind-the-scenes op-ed piece entitled: The Great (Double) Game.

For a variety of comments on the situation, see Afghanistan and the Counterinsurgency War at PBS.org

Photo credit: United States Marine Corps, through Wikimedia Commons.

A shift in American foreign policy?

As the United States turns it's attention to the Democratic and Republican conventions and the upcoming presidential election, political analysts are evaluating the Bush era and paying close attention to the country's foreign policy. For better or worse, the United States is the dominant player on the world stage. It's influence is global.

What foreign policy goals should the next American president set?

In an engaging essay in American Interest magazine, a quarterly magazine whose tone is largely bi-partisan, historian John Lewis Gaddis argues that George W. Bush may have already subtly shifted the United States' focus. He quotes Bush's second inaugural speech in 2005 when the president said, "it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

Gaddis argues that "ending tyranny" is an old idea in American politics - it permeates the Declaration of Independence and was an important policy of many early presidents, from Jefferson to Adams to Lincoln . It's an important concept because it recognizes that before democracies can take root, people must have security and safety first; the "freedom from fear" that Franklin D. Roosevelt talked about.

This may be a hard lesson re-learned, as the world and the White House study what's gone wrong in Iraq and in other countries where the United States has tried unsuccessfully to push, prod and promote democracy.

Gaddis is a renowned Yale professor, best known for his studies of the Cold War. He surprises us with the revelation that, contrary to public perception, George W. Bush is an avid reader and a serious student of history. Hard to believe, isn't it? Gaddis is impressed with the president's first-hand knowledge of this subject and his association with historians.

Anyway, the essay will be an interesting read for both the Obama and McCain camp, as they look ahead to the election later this year.

I enjoyed it.

See Ending Tyranny - The past and future of an idea in American Interest.

Thanks to Arts and Letters Daily for highlighting it.

Also, Independence Day in this blog has more on the ideas of Thomas Jefferson.

Photo of the Capitol Building in Washington courtesy of Michael Slonecker.
-------------
> To send this to a friend, click on the envelope icon.
> To bookmark or share on social networking sites, click the icon in the top right corner of the page.

Independence Day

Whether Americans or not, we can all take a moment today to consider the words of the Declaration of Independence, signed on this day in 1776.

The spirit and the ideals of the document are still fresh, although one could argue that the concept of good government has lost it's shine lately. Let us hope in the future.

As Jefferson (pictured here), Adams, Franklin, Hancock and those other luminaries said so many years ago:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

I don't advocate revolution, but I admire the ability of humankind to recognize the need to reform government when necessary. It's one of the seeds of democracy.

--------------------------

Many thanks to Thad Zajdowicz for his photo of the Thomas Jefferson statue at Merchant's Square, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Would you want to vote for a World President?

Will it ever be possible to create a world democracy to govern the planet? Something that could replace the United Nations, perhaps, and allow people from all countries to participate in an international democratic government? Could such a government help us overcome the challenges of global warming, for example?

These are some of the intriguing question posed by a world-wide project called "Why Democracy?"

The project revolves around a series of documentaries; ten unique films. The documentaries are being used to stimulate a global discussion about democracy.

One of these films is called "Please Vote for Me." It's a gripping, personal story of eight-year-old children voting for Class Monitor in a school in Wuhan, China. Director Weijun Chen conducts a clever experiment to see how democracy might be received if it developed there. He explores the question of whether democracy is a shared human value, and he does it in the heart of a country where elections only take place strictly within the Communist Party.

The "Why Democracy" project presents another nine documentaries, most of which have been shown at international film festivals and won awards.

"Why Democracy" has a website, http://www.whydemocracy.net/home, that is run from a house in Cape Town, South Africa, where young people from different countries coordinate the project. They also produce an interesting blog, that you can see here.

A number of media organizations are supporting the project, including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). The CBC and the Metro Express chain of commuter newspapers have been interviewing famous people on the subject of democracy. Former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali noted that "in a great part of the world 50 per cent of the population are illiterate" and that this represents an obstacle to democratic participation, particularly for women, who are more disadvantaged than men in many parts of the world.

The democracy project asks a number of intriguing questions in its web polls.
Here are a few:

Who would you vote for as President of the World? (Boutros Boutros-Ghali picked Nelson Mandela.)

Is religion more powerful that politics?

Are democracy and capitalism compatible?

It's an interesting project and a wonderful dialogue.