Odds and Ends

American politics. Disparaging terms like “playpen”, “zoo”, and others may spring to mind, especially to those who live outside the US and can view it from outside, but that is not fair. The US is a nation in search of itself, again. This is not the first time. The only real question is, what will it find when it finds itself? In any case, I could waste several posts on this topic, but I have better things to do. So I will just toss out a few comments and be done with it, at least until it forces itself back on the agenda.

Obama – His strength lies in the weakness of his opposition and that weakness is based on a lack of focus. Focus will eventually come, but Democrats may provide it before Republicans do.

The Opponent From Within – Now that Naomi Pitcairn and friends have gotten the ball rolling by singing, We paid our dues, where’s our change?, the Democratic left is moving toward its all but inevitable challenge to President Obama’s renomination. Their candidate? The best bet at the moment to actually launch a public campaign is their quadrennial lost cause, Dennis Kucinich, but someone else may step up, perhaps Naomi Pitcairn? In any case, he or she will provide an alternative for any Democrat wishing to protest Obama’s policies. That could be very damaging to the President.

Clinton – I take Hillary Clinton at her word that she has no intention of running for the Presidency in 2012. For her to be a candidate, the Party would have to come to her. She will not volunteer to let them do to her once again what they did to her in 2008. Some politicians are gluttons for punishment; some are too intelligent for that. I think Hillary has shown herself to be much too intelligent for that. But if Democrats make it clear they aren’t happy with Barack, who else of national stature do they turn to? Who else can oppose him while legitimately claiming to have done everything possible to help him? If things start to fall apart for Democrats, who else can hope to put them back together?

The Other Side – When it comes to electrifying the electorate, none of the Republicans seem up to it at the moment. After a sufficiently expensive and nasty brawl for the next year, should that be the case, the last man/woman standing might find electrification hard to come by. For now, this is an internal Party affair. The rest of us can only wait and take another look in a few months. This picture will change, perhaps more than once. For now, it’s just a blur.

Bloomberg – A man who considered a run in 2008 and now in his third term as Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg cannot be ruled out. Although, like Hillary, he insists he is not a candidate, that can change and he won’t have to resign his post to do it as she would. Plus, he’d be running as an independent with the financial means to compete from the moment he made the decision. If I were a Republican or a Democrat, I would ignore Michael Bloomberg at my own peril. Whatever, he sure would trump Trump.

Enough. There are more “odds” up there than “ends”. I intend to return my focus where it belongs and where it is every day in any case – to the global scene. America plays an important part in that scene, but only a part and not as critical as it once was, not by a long shot, regardless of what Americans might want to think.

Like Europeans, Americans are tying themselves up into knots politically, economically, and socially. How it will all play out on either side of The Pond is an open question, but the rest of the world has to get up every morning and get to work building their futures. They are doing just that. So will we, one of these days. Sooner rather than later, one hopes.

For the moment, the US is forced to chase its own tail. Eventually, it will catch it and take a good bite. When the pain subsides, maybe that will finally force it to stop, think, and act as the great nation it has been and can be again.

———

Future Brief will be updated as time allows. If you find it interesting, you are welcome to drop by whenever you like. But if you would prefer to save a little time and effort, feel free to subscribe either to the email alerts or RSS feed in the upper-right corner of the page and the system will automatically let you know. Thanks for visiting!

Eight Days Later

Eight days ago, I expressed my serious irritation with President Obama for appearing to be unable to make up his mind what he wanted to do with regard to Libya. My distress was directly related to the need to confront fascists with a clear response, backed up by action, not just words. If the decision was not to attack, so be it, but make that clear. If it was, as it appeared to be at the time and indeed was, a decision to attack, then get to it and stop appearing to be confused and indecisive (dithering and dallying, to use older English words). The worst thing you can do when confronted with a fascist at war is to talk and not act.

Some said it might be because our government knew something we didn’t know and was taking its time for a good reason. Well, it turned out to be a matter of a severe disagreement among advisors that required President Obama to make a decision and, finally, he did.

Now it is underway with the typical results of military action, particularly in the early days…uncertainty as to the outcome. However, despite my approval of their having finally made the decision to stand by the principles they say they represent, I now have to deal with the other great problem – the lack of effective leadership.

Europe is a mess. European “Union”, hardly. I think the analysts at Stratfor summed it up in their analysis today:

Europeans are not united in their perceptions of the operation’s goals — or on how to wage the operation. The one thing the Europeans share is a seeming lack of an exit strategy from a struggle originally marketed as a no-fly zone akin to that imposed on Iraq in 1997 to a struggle that is actually being waged as an airstrike campaign along the lines of the 1999 campaign against Serbia, with the goal of regime change mirroring that of the 2001 Afghan and 2003 Iraq campaigns.

That is not “mission creep”. That is mission confusion.

As for the US, once again, President Obama has failed to communicate effectively with either his party or his employers, the American people. The Democrats are splintering. Their liberal-left (“progressive”) coalition is unraveling at this point. On the one hand, we have Joe Weisenthal at Business Insider arguing Why The War In Libya Is America’s Most Principled War In Decades while Leslie Gelb at the Daily Beast complains about The Horrible Libya Hypocrisies.

Gelb’s essay is led by a sentence that should be deeply disturbing to anyone who supports President Obama.

Neocons and liberal interventionists stampeded Obama into imposing a no-fly zone against Libya—despite the absence of vital U.S. interests there.

Good lord, do those who told us that Barack Obama was an intelligent man who stood head and shoulders (or more) above George W. Bush now treat him as if he is some sort of doofus, dumbie, nitwit who can be “stampeded” into a war? I suppose this is one way of trying to release Obama from too much of the guilt that Gelb thinks is appropriate, but it’s a very sad note and another indication of the crumbling of the coalition that first brought the Senator Obama of 2008 to the forefront of Democratic politics and, eventually, to the White House. And now it appears that Dennis Kucinich once again is laying the foundation for another attempt at the Democratic nomination in 2012. An unhappy left-wing now has its excuse to bolt.

I believe that Barack Obama is a very intelligent man, whether I agree with him or not. His failing is his continuing inability to communicate with the people he needs to have behind him, whether Democrats or the American people as a whole. Without communication, a leader loses his followers. With as much stress as we now all face on this planet, that communication is incredibly important. But I do not fault President Obama alone. He has plenty of company in Europe. In one sense, President Obama leads a coalition government every bit as shaky those led by David Cameron, Angela Merkel, and others. They all have too much in common, but not the right stuff.

This is why I am so hesitant to write on the politics of the Old World of the North Atlantic. Whether you agree with their various leaders or not, the simple fact is that you cannot ignore the astounding disarray, both among these leaders and among their supporters. Metaphorical words like “circus” and “zoo” come to mind much too easily.

If I were to advise any of these leaders, I would suggest they sit and read the words of another American President during a very difficult time. Only two months after Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt led a nation where there was no question about America’s “involvement” in the war we call World War Two. Despite the unity of his party and Congress in entering that war, there were those who criticized the decision and many who feared the results of that decision. Understandably, Americans wanted to know why it was happening and what the plan was for its implementation.

On the 210th anniversary of George Washington’s birthday, February 23rd of 1942, President Roosevelt delivered one of his famous “fireside chats”. He spoke to the American public by radio. There was no way to read his face or to see graphs, maps, charts and so forth. The average adult American of that time had an eighth-grade education. He could have chosen to give a “cheerleader” speech, relying on patriotic emotion to gain support. Instead, he chose to treat the American people as intelligent adults. I read his presentation today and I wonder when we will have another American President who can communicate even half as effectively as he did. Note: Roosevelt uses the term “United Nations”. He is not referring to the UN we know. That was the term at that time for those we now call the “Allies”.

No, the Libyan War is not World War Two. That’s not the point. The point is to communicate. The point is to lead.

So it is that I recommend to you that you take a few minutes to read Franklin D. Roosevelt’s address to the American people on that winter day 68 years ago. If someone out there has Barack Obama’s ear, perhaps they can pass this along.

———

Future Brief will be updated as time allows. If you find it interesting, you are welcome to drop by whenever you like. But if you would prefer to save a little time and effort, feel free to subscribe either to the email alerts or RSS feed in the upper-right corner of the page and the system will automatically let you know. Thanks for visiting!

Shame on you, President Obama, shame on you

I am disgusted. This camel’s back cannot bear this new straw. I watch events unfold in Bahrain with disgust. But I have been in global work far too long not to realize that this is a struggle between two power elites, Arab and Persian, Sunni and Shi’a, that has been underway for centuries. The people, both those doing the shooting and those being shot, are pawns on their chessboard. I have no use for either power elite. It is more than difficult to choose a “side” to support on moral grounds.

But Libya is different. This is a clear-cut struggle between the oppressed and their dictator, a two-bit fascist who has killed and continues to kill for his own personal benefit. I watch with equal disgust as the US government wobbles around, unable to speak and act clearly. Thus it was with approval and some relief to hear someone in the political elite of the Old World, the North Atlantic, speak out plainly and clearly. His name is Alain Juppé and he is the foreign minister of France. If you read French, you can read his comments at his blog. If not, here is a translation. Most other translations of this are “machine” translations and not as clear as they should be, so I have done my own, only very slightly modifying it to provide clarity in English without doing damage to the original.

OUR HONOR

It is not enough to proclaim, as did almost all the major democracies, that “Gaddafi must go.” We must give ourselves the means to effectively assist those who took up arms against his dictatorship.

Legal and financial sanctions agreed by the United Nations and the European Union are useful. But we know they only give results after several months. There is an urgent need now.

Only the threat of use of force can stop Gaddafi. It is by bombing, with dozens of planes and helicopters that are at his disposal, the positions of the rebels that the Libyan dictator has shifted the balance. We can neutralize his air assets in targeted strikes. This is what France and Great Britain have proposed for two weeks. There are two conditions: to obtain a mandate from the Security Council of UN, the only source of international law regarding the use of force; to act not only with the support but also the effective participation of Arab countries. This second condition is being fulfilled: several Arab countries have assured us they would participate. France, with Great Britain and Lebanon joining us in New York, have offered the draft resolution that would give us the needed mandate. The President of the Republic and the British Prime Minister solemnly call on Council members to consider and adopt it.

It has often happened in our contemporary history that the weakness of democracies leaves the field open to dictatorships. It’s not too late to put the lie to that rule. This will be the honor of France that we have tried everything to get there.

Thank you, Alain Juppé. It is nice to hear a political leader call on us to walk the walk, having talked the talk for so long.

Here is Barack Obama speaking in Cairo in June of 2009.

America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

Yes, that is out of context, but insofar as I am concerned, not at all inappropriately. His full speech can be seen and read here and you can make your own determination, if you like.

I am not an Obama-basher and tire of that ad hominem nonsense quickly. I hold the office of the Presidency in great regard and, despite how much I may disagree with the man who temporarily who holds that office, I never forget that the office is greater than the man. Thus, I always want to think our President, whether I like him or not, is a man who is in charge of our foreign policy and willing to do what needs to be done to support both our nation and the principles we claim (and he claims) to represent. I want to be able to support him, even if I disagree with him, but I definitely do not want him to dither, to dally, to prevaricate, to sit by and watch others die for the principles we as Americans say we live by. Fiddling while Libya burns is a travesty.

There is a crude and simple way of putting it in English. Shit or get off the pot.

I am ashamed that Americans have to wait for the French, British, and Lebanese, for heaven’s sake, to take an initiative we should have proposed ourselves. Worse yet, I am ashamed when the initiative is taken, but we are not included as one of the sponsors. Elsewhere at this blog, I have argued the importance of the word in determining the course of events. There is a word here as well. That word is “fascism”.

Today, I read that Secretary Clinton has been snubbed by the young leaders of Egypt for America’s failure to hear them when they called for help.

Unless Alain Juppé and his colleagues can get some very, very, very rapid action out of the current administration, the “young leaders” of Libya will have much harsher words for us and rightfully so. That is, of course, if there are any young leaders left when the killing is over.

Shame on you, President Obama, shame on you.

———

Future Brief will be updated as time allows. If you find it interesting, you are welcome to drop by whenever you like. But if you would prefer to save a little time and effort, feel free to subscribe either to the email alerts or RSS feed in the upper-right corner of the page and the system will automatically let you know. Thanks for visiting!

Two Tea Parties?

Two Tea Parties in less than three years. Who predicted that? Two, you say? Yes, I would argue that the first Tea Party was the movement that brought Barack Obama to the Presidency. To avoid confusion, let’s call the first Tea Party, the Obama Party, and consider the parallels.

• Both can be considered “grassroots” movements.




• Both reject the traditional leaders of a major party.




• Both can legitimately claim to be fully “insurgent movements”, surging against not only a party establishment, but against the opposition as well and simultaneously.




• Both offer ill-defined slogans, allowing each to be many things to many people. How does “Yes We Can!” differ from “I Want My Country Back!” in substance? Yes we can…what? And what do you mean by “my country”?




• Both began with a tabula rasa on which their supporters could write what they like, while avoiding their internal differences prior to holding power.




• Both demonize their opposition and canonize themselves.

There are differences. The Obama Party is focused on a single personality. Sarah Palin may aspire to the same position with the Tea Party, but she still has much more to accomplish before she can claim that. And of course, the Obama Party won real power, not just some party primaries, while the Tea Party awaits the November results. The Obama Party’s tabula rasa has now been written on, indelibly, while the Tea Party’s remains covered with the chalk scrawls of millions.

There is one remaining major difference. The Obama Party won power, but lost its way. Disappointment and confusion have replaced inspiration and a call to action. Will the same occur should the Tea Party and its supporters feel they have won in November, only to feel they have lost their way a few months later?

It is no surprise that during a time of national crisis, an insurgency challenges incumbency. But I suggest the Obama Party is not yet truly an incumbent party, but rather a failed insurgency. In effect, a new insurgency faces a failed insurgency and should it fail as well, what do we have left?

At times of great financial distress threatening the futures of tens of millions of Americans, great leaders have risen. You know that Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan were great leaders because both could claim majority support of the public when they needed it, despite a minority that saw each as a grave danger to the republic. With the circumstances they both faced, damaging deflation for Roosevelt and damaging inflation for Reagan, both may have been extremely controversial figures, but no one could deny that both led. You did not have to ask “Who’s in charge?” It was obvious who was in charge. Love him or hate him, he was a leader.

The greatest potential threat facing this United States today is not poor leadership, but no leadership. No one in charge. We deserve better than that.