Tag Archives: Politics

by

Saith Me… King of the Hill

Does the enemy attack when we are weak? When we are distracted? Yes, historically there have been attacks when we have been weak and distracted. But we are also attacked when we are arrogantly standing on a hill declaring our greatness to the world.

So when did arrogance begin replacing weakness and distraction as the invitation for an attack? It happened after the First Gulf War, when the US people had shown they supported a fight. After that war, it became clear that the US public had changed since the Vietnam War. Kudos to President Reagan for reestablishing a fighting mentality in the people.

So why is arrogance and the willingness to fight an invitation for attack? In simple terms, the Cold War was a war of economic attrition with both sides betting that military spending would weaken the other side first. Enemies of the US took note, and knew that if the US was drawn into a protracted conflict, it would further weaken the US economy. If the US could be drawn into a preemptive or unilateral fight, then worldwide public opinion would also turn against and weaken the US.

This is the strategy of terrorism, peck at the king on the hill until he is overtaxed, spread too thin. Not so that victory can be achieved in a decisive battle, but so that the king will fall; fall from his own inability to stop reacting to the threat. Fall because rather than sharing the target on his back with allies, he will want to stand on the hill all alone. His arrogance will defeat his kingdom and not the enemy.

by

It isn’t a joking matter…

Presidents’ kids have a rough go of it, young or old, but the campaign family of the past was seen more than they were heard. If they could not advance the campaign, they stayed out of the campaign.

Tagg Romney’s comments go beyond “just being a son” and certainly beyond a “jest,” they play into the anger and frustration of a nation looking for someone to blame, to retaliate against for the suffering they feel. When we feel woe and strife, we tend to either hide or strike out. When the woe does not have a face attached, we look for a face to attach to it. This is the basic nature of the animal of man, to flee/hide or strike/attack. This campaign season highlights the very reality that man has not overcome his base instincts.

This is the nature of what Tagg Romney is expressing (even in jest), and the human nature he is pandering to in his comments. He has a right to “feel” and he has a right to “speak” but when he is part of the campaign, his feelings, if expressed, and his spoken words are part of the campaign. Bear in mind, Tagg Romney was born in 1970 and is old enough to run for president himself, so he is certainly accountable for the words he speaks, even under the pretense of a jest.

More importantly, Tagg Romney is part of his father’s circle and therefore his words are relevant to the campaign. A public representative, will be held accountable for their actions, and to some extent the actions of those in their circle.  After all the campaigning in which Mitt Romney has participated, he and his family should be aware that this is the reality.

I am disturbed that the Romney Clan has yet to understand this basic principle of campaign policy/strategy – what is spoken, joke, misspeak or open-mic, does matter to the public.  We see it as a peek inside the “real” person, whether it is or not.

The president, upon taking the oath of office, will no longer be the common man*, but will be held to a higher standard than the people he serves. The president does not need to be perfect, but he does need to understand the scrutiny will not ease up and the standards will always be high. If he, and his family, cannot handle this pressure in the campaign, they will implode when he is in the White House.  And that would not be a joking matter.

* or common woman

Tagg Romney’s apology

by

Who is to blame for the sad state of affairs…

So Tagg Romney says he would like to punch the President for calling his dad a liar. The online comments then flow as to who would deliver the knock out punch to Tagg before the Secret Service reached him – The President or the First Lady.

But the real question is why it is okay for Tagg to be upset that the President called his dad a liar when his dad keeps calling the President a liar?

This President has been called a liar since before he took office, his very citizenship disbelieved.

Politics is all about spin, always has been, but have we crossed a line? Why has it become so abhorrent? Not the spin, but the mud-slinging.

At the end of the day, We The People had better take a long hard look at ourselves, because as much as we like to blame our politicians for the state in which we find ourselves, we cannot lay the blame for all the accusations and hatred at their feet.  The mud-slinging and the name calling and the horrid bigotry does not start with them, for they are just representatives of the people.

When we lose all respect for the office they hold, and the office is not separate from the holder as much as we might want to argue the point, then We The People, and not those we elect, will be the destruction of our nation.

Follow-up: Morning After:  When I shared this to my Facebook Wall last night I commented, “It really isn’t a joking matter…” and just now, the morning after, I saw the following ABC headline “Tagg Romney Jests That he Wants to ‘Take a Swing’ at President.”

But it really isn’t a joking matter, now is it?

Tagg Romney’s apology

by

Age, Gender and Politics

I just read the oddest comment which asserts Secretary of State Clinton is too old for the job. Interesting opinion especially since she was born the same year as Mitt Romney. Even more interesting is that she has stated multiple times she is retiring this year. But Romney is campaigning for a new job.

Hmmmm…

In politics does age only matter when it is gender specific?  Does it only matter if the person questioning age is the same generation as those in question?  Does it matter at all?

Something certainly worth pondering…

by

Classwork has me pondering…

A fellow student recently mentioned the conventional nature of war in the conflict between Israel and Lebanon.  This caused me to think about Israel and Iran.

Unlike Israel and Lebanon who share a common border and therefore can wage a conventional war rather easily, Israel and Iran are separated by a large land mass making direct conflict more difficult. On a smaller scale, they seem to be waging a “cold war” of rhetoric and defense build-up, but unlike in the Cold War, they have limited ability to “export” hot, conventional war.

This is where, I think, the US finds itself in a bad situation. Entangling alliances and diplomacy are threatening to pull us in to a regional battle that would leave us the big losers. While Iran does not seem like the ‘nicest’ of world players (especially with the crazy dude spouting craziness all the time), Israel is more dangerous because they seem to be looking for justification for a preemptive strike. When we made the preemptive argument for Iraq, we gave credibility to others who want to make the same argument.  Worse, no amount of justification can overshadow the chaos left behind, or the reality that even with our best intentions, we cannot “build” a foundation others won’t tear down once we are completely pulled out.  To keep the peace and preserve what we have tried to do, we have to be a modern version of an imperial power, i.e. we make the ‘sovereign’ nation dependent on our economic, political, and military strength. Or – the big elephant in the room – we pull out, cut our losses, and deal with the repercussions for the next few decades. If we take the second option, Israel will have further justification for preemptive strike, knowing they will not need to clean up any mess they make, because we set the precedent. I shudder to think what Pakistan would then do.

Then what, would we all take sides? Would it be like a game of Risk? Would we be lucky to end up in a new Cold War, or would we see a WWI chain reaction?

Just something to ponder…

 

News article found after posting – check it out.  http://hamptonroads.com/2012/10/exdefense-chief-says-hit-iran-would-be-disastrous

by

Lives versus Pocketbooks

In the debate tonight, Romney may have been more aggressive in his debating, however, I think Romney may have reminded us of some concerning issues. Two issues that really concern me are,
  1. Consolidating bureaucracies = firing people;
  2. A stronger military = government paid for developmental military contracts & arms build-up.

These are the two points that still really make me uncomfortable voting for Romney. You see, Romney wants me to vote for him over President Obama, but he won’t clarify these points.  Unlike the president, Romney has to sell me on the fact that he would be the better president. So while I will look past the pained expression he always wears, (I give him the benefit of the doubt that it is a pained and not condescending expression), I can’t look past these points.

So can someone explain to me how you cut the budget but not cut military spending, medicare, or educational funding, as Romney promised he would do if elected?

What does that leave? Foreign aid, arts, Post-It notes, what am I missing here? Because my understanding is that the real ‘pork’ is spent by Congress, and the President is limited in his influence in that regard. The President can only change the ‘discretionary’ funds, not the Congressional pet projects. He can veto, but that is tough when the pork is attached to the salaries of men and women serving their country, or other vital spending.

So, as far as I can tell, unless we rapidly and substantially downsize govt, which puts people out of work, Romney’s plan involves two things: a magic wand coupled with really scary, Reagan-like military build-up, which by the way will not make us safer, but will make some developers rich. Will they employ people? Of course, but 12 million people? Or even enough to offset bureaucratic downsizing? Even with a trickle-down effect, I can’t fathom how Romney’s plan will work without magic?

I am not looking at this from a partisan point of view, because I agree that the bureaucracy is too big, and because I don’t care whether the military spending on new war machine development is a Republican or Democrat idea. I’m looking at this from the point of view of someone who was really glad to see the Cold War end. I do not want to see another arms race started by our actions. If Romney really intends to ‘fix’ our economy and create jobs through military build-up, I am very concerned. Because historically, when the US fixes its economy with military build-up, it soon after, goes to war.

FYI – replacing old machines with new is not the issue, but dumping loads of money into experimental development beyond what we already spend, is the issue.

Think about it – we won’t pay to keep our people healthy, but we will pay to create machines that will kill, not only our enemies, but also our own people. How is this right?

I am a proud supporter of the military and the purpose of the military, but I really want leadership who will think of the lives of people before the pocketbooks of people. There has to be a way to achieve health, safety, and economic prosperity, but I did not hear solutions tonight.  And as far as I am concerned that does not make anyone a winner, but all of us losers.  We just have to decide how we want to lose, healthy but poor in the short term, or rich but facing the potential of another arms race and war in the future all because we, again, only see US national interests, and not the world’s.

A link on the deficit crisis supplied by Leigh Ann.

http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/EW5IdwltaAc?rel=0

by

Are we likable?

Joseph S. Nye, Jr. has developed a definition of Soft Power versus Hard Power.  Hard power is based on coercion (military, economic, etc.). Soft Power is based on creating a system others want to emulate.  He says,

“This soft power – getting others to want the outcomes that you want – co-opts people rather than coerces them.”

and

“When a country’s culture includes universal values and its policies promote values and interests that others share, it increases the relationship of attraction…”

“Narrow values and parochial cultures are less likely to produce soft power.”

So are we going about all this wrong?  Are we, with our polarization of politics and talk of enemies, making ourselves less likable and thereby less attractive to the rest of the world?

Once we were seen as the Yanks who came to save the day.  Then we became the worlds police force, or peacekeeping force.  But something seems to have changed, and often we are disliked more than liked. In our attempt to protect ourselves from bullies, have we crossed a line and become the bully?

Just something to ponder…

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Nye, Joseph S., Jr. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: PublicAffairs Books, 2004.