Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Blog Hits 4 Bush

The Supreme Court recently heard a case relating to the First Amendment rights of an Alaskan high school kid. This smart aleck was chastised by his school principal because he held up a sign – outside school property and hence its jurisdiction – that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”

There were two things that struck me about this case. My initial reaction was – wow! Doesn’t the Supreme Court have enough of a case load without wanting to waste its time on an appeal as seemingly “dopey” as this? But in a more serious vein, I wondered – will this august body ever review more significant First Amendment violations, inherent in Sections 215 and 505 of the Patriot Act, that were imposed upon the larger American public by President Bush?

Fortunately, in this age of interactive digital communications, redress is a click away and in a medium where substance often trumps style. The classical sound bite that used to be proffered by a select few is being superseded by a plethora of instantaneous “vivoda” bytes. This multiplex of video, voice, and data opinions is being constantly disseminated by the people, for the people, and to the people. Welcome to the blogosphere – a fundamental instrument of 21st century democracy!

One would have thought that the Bush Administration would have learned by now that responsibility is when you acknowledge your mistake; accountability is when you pay for it. Oftentimes one can pay for a mistake through a sincere apology, but sometimes the gravity of the blunder is such that it necessitates the perpetrator’s resignation or dismissal from said position of responsibility. Each of the recent major gaffes committed by various Bush Administration officials require a resolution that satisfies the public trust.

In “Walter Gate” the Bush Administration was clearly worried of losing a core Republican constituency – the U.S. military and their families – had the scandal not been quickly contained. As a result, Army Secretary Francis Harvey resigned, Army Surgeon General Kevin Kiley retired, and Walter Reed commander George Weightman was fired. They were all forced to take one for Team Bush so that the Administration could actually be seen as “walking its signature ‘support the troops’ talk.”

In “Libby Date” Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, found it difficult to keep track of dates – and, when he had told or heard, what from or to whom – regarding the outing of CIA operative, Valerie Plame. A jury found him guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice and he now faces a June sentencing date with the judge. Per blogger speculation, Libby could get anywhere from 15 months to three years in jail. My own take on an intensely debated presidential pardon for Libby appeared in a letter to the New York Times on March 8, 2007.

In the “Attorneys Fate” fiasco, the blogosphere has more or less concurred with the mainstream media that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will sooner than later meet the same fate as his “non-performing” U.S. Attorneys.

In the “Gay Hate” rant, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shouldn’t be asked, but told by President Bush to issue an earnest apology for his abhorrent views. An initial surge of mainstream media opinions did make this demand, but corresponding blog hits did not keep up the pace. Nonetheless, the general needs to come out and apologize to all gays in general, but especially to those serving in uniform – and particularly to those risking their lives right now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Finally, in the “FBI Bait” case, wherein hundreds of unauthorized national security letters (NSL) were issued to unsuspecting American citizens, President Bush needs to lift the gag order. This will allow bloggers an opportunity to legally do what the Washington Post afforded to an NSL recipient under cover of anonymity – an ability to exercise their First Amendment rights as guaranteed in the Constitution, so that they can continue to defend this self same Constitution from such egregious abuse in the future.

Since the WSJ editorial page actually ran a literal clarification for “Bong Hits 4 Jesus – Explained” – I thought it my help to know that the “hits” in my title don’t have anything to do with web statistics. They are simply good old fashioned hits – that represent feedback from the people to the president of the United States – and I can only hope that POTUS is listening!

Friday, March 23, 2007

The Political Pendulum: Swinging to Liberalism

There appears to be a karmic cycle in U.S. political ideology based on the political history of what is known as the "American century." A cursory analysis shows that U.S. political philosophy has followed a simple undulating pattern since the early 20th century.

The 1930s were a transitional decade from the roaring twenties – with the laissez-faire business policies pursued by Republican presidents, Harding and Coolidge – to the New Deal programs that were ushered in by Democratic president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), during the Great Depression.

The 1940s through 1960s defined the Liberal Era, which commenced under FDR – who went on to become the "demigod" of the Democratic Party. This progressive age witnessed unprecedented domestic reforms beginning with the landmark 1954 Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education outlawing segregation in public education, to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This golden age of liberalism also saw U.S. foreign policy in ascendant starting with the victory of our greatest generation in World War II, to the containment of communism during a prolonged Cold War, and culminating with a triumph in space over the Soviet Union by that visionary "leap for mankind" pre-ordained in the days of Camelot by President John F. Kennedy. Nonetheless, this exigent age also included an "Ozzie and Harriet" decade in the 1950s under the era's only Republican Administration led by President Eisenhower.

The 1970s became the next transitional decade from the swinging sixties – with the Great Society programs pursued by Democratic president, Lyndon Baines Johnson – to the initial chaos of Watergate and Vietnam under Republican presidents, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford; and to the latter turmoil of stagflation and the Iranian hostage crisis under Democratic president, Jimmy Carter.

The 1980s through 2000s define the Conservative Era, which began under President Reagan – who is now revered as the "icon" of the Republican Party. This restoration age gave birth to supply-side economics, has produced over 45 million jobs to-date while simultaneously taming inflation, and has seen a critical tilt in the U.S. Supreme Court toward starboard. This heyday of conservatism has also seen U.S. foreign policy reach an early crescendo with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent collapse of the "evil empire" to end the Cold War. However, following the attacks of 9/11, we have seen the advent of the Bush Doctrine and a new long "war on terror." Nonetheless, this challenging age also had an intervening decade of "peace and prosperity" in the 1990s under the era's only Democratic Administration led by President Clinton.

Based on this karmic cycle, one can expect to live through another transitional decade in the 2010s as the U.S. adjusts to the dawn of a new liberal era. However, as President Nixon did in 1969 with an unpopular war in Vietnam, the new president in 2009 will face a similar testing time trying to end America's involvement in another unpopular war in Iraq.

One can only hope that U.S. political history will be as instructive to the new president in 2009 as U.S. political karma should be to all of us? For the great American philosopher, George Santayana, had wisely intoned at the start of the great American century,
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Monday, March 19, 2007

The Only Way Out of Iraq

On the eve of the fourth anniversary of the Iraq war, the Washington Post editors did an insightful take on the “Lessons of War.” This editorial was all the more conspicuous by the absence of the word “Islam” in any form throughout their analysis. This is a vital lesson that the Bush Administration and its neocon advisors have refused to learn during the four year occupation of Iraq. While the Administration might insist on Iraq being the “central front in the war on terror,” it really does not need to associate any of its brutal aspects with Islam. After all there are approximately 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, including about 5 million in the United States.

Having said that, any resolution to our involvement in Iraq will come from an answer to this key question that must be determined by polling the Iraqi people:
Are you Iraqi first and Muslim second, or are you Muslim first and Iraqi second?

If a majority of the Iraqis consider themselves Iraqi first, only then is it likely that President Bush’s current surge strategy will succeed. If a majority of the Iraqis consider themselves Muslim first, it is highly unlikely that any military solution – including the current surge strategy – is going to achieve the desired results. And, if this is indeed the case, the Bush Administration definitely needs to keep Islam out of the equation and pursue a purely political solution for Iraq.

The natural follow-up question to the “Muslim first” Iraqis would be:
Are you a Muslim first and Shia/Sunni second, or are you Shia/Sunni first and Muslim second?
However, this question seems redundant given that Iraqis have been involved, for over a year now, in a sectarian conflict – which is also a confirmation that they have pretty much put religion before country as well.

So if they are Shia/Sunni first, Muslim second and only then Iraqi, it would seem to me that we are inevitably headed for a modified but non-planned version of the Biden-Gelb plan – a violent trifurcation of Iraq without any central control.

Even if we did manage to bring a temporary peace to Baghdad and trained the Iraqi army for what it's worth, can we really teach the Iraqi people patriotism and love of country over religion, when they have clearly shown a preference for their different strains of Islam? This is the real lesson to be learned from not only the Iraq War, but also the larger war on terror – we have to get religion out of the equation because nobody is going to concede that they are the children of a lesser god. Hasn’t history repeatedly taught us that indelible lesson?

I would hope it has. The only way left to get religion out of the equation, even at this late stage, is by co-opting friendly Muslim nations with sizeable armies to join U.S. forces in bringing peace to Iraq. This strategy might seem like naïveté, but we do provide large economic and military assistance to allies like Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and Turkey. It is time President Bush leaned on them to provide military personnel to help us complete our mission in Iraq. It’s only after friendly Muslim armies join us in Iraq that the local population will quickly assert the primacy of its Iraqi character – thereby ensuring our mission in Iraq will succeed. As we start our fifth year of occupation, this now appears to be the only way out of Iraq!

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Gore's Karmic Cycle

Democrats are not going to like this comparison but there seems to be an uncanny parallel thus far between the political careers of Richard M. Nixon and Albert A. Gore, Jr.

Nixon served as a reserve officer in the US Navy during World War II, as a Congressman in the US House of Representatives (1947-1950), as a US Senator (1951-52), and as Vice President of the United States (1952-1960).

Gore served as a journalist in the US Army during the Vietnam War, as a Congressman in the US House of Representatives (1977-1984), as a US Senator (1985-92), and as Vice President of the United States (1993-2000).

In 1960 Nixon narrowly lost the presidency to Kennedy by a 0.2% margin in the popular vote and there were allegations of voter fraud in Illinois where a few thousand votes separated the two candidates.

In 2000 Gore lost the presidency to Bush despite winning the popular vote by a 0.5% margin and there were allegations of voter fraud in Florida where a few hundred votes separated the two candidates.

Two years after losing the presidency, Nixon made his famous declaration, "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference" while acknowledging defeat in the 1962 California governor's race.

Two years after losing the presidency, Gore revealed his position regarding a 2004 rerun, "I've decided that I will not be a candidate," in an interview on the CBS News program "60 Minutes." This announcement came the day after Gore became the first former Vice President to host NBC's "Saturday Night Live."

In the six years that followed Nixon's "last press conference", the United States got involved in Vietnam in what began as a noble attempt at preventing Southeast Asia from succumbing to communist influence (under the auspices of the Communist Domino theory). By 1968, popular opinion had turned against the Vietnam War.

In the four years to-date after Gore's "SNL" and "60 Minutes" appearances, the United States got involved in Iraq in what began as a convoluted attempt at linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11, to stockpiles of WMD, and to the broader war on terror (under the auspices of the Bush Doctrine). By 2007, popular opinion had turned against the Iraq War.

Nearly eight years after losing his first run for president, Richard Nixon won the Republican Party's nomination once again in 1968 by defeating challenges from Nelson Rockefeller, Ronald Reagan, and George Romney. Nixon appealed to his conservative base by promising that "new leadership will end the war and win the peace in the Pacific." On November 5, 1968 Nixon, in his second attempt, was successfully elected 37th president of the United States.

My comparison stops at this point, but with Gore's recent resurgence with the American public and in the media, speculation is ripe that he will emulate his karmic equivalent and enter the 2008 race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Given his winning positions on contemporary issues of the day ranging from the environment to the country's broader foreign policy problems, it shouldn't be hard for Gore to neutralize Senator Clinton's current front runner status in the Democratic slate of presidential candidates. Gore could do this more effectively by co-opting Senator Obama early on to provide Democrats with the winning ticket in 2008. It could very well launch the start of "GoreObamania" and hopefully close the loop on Gore's karmic cycle on November 4, 2008.