Mitt Romney's international trip has been filled with gaffes. Anyone who follows politics will be less than surprised since the man is an awkward moment waiting to happen. Nevertheless, Mitt's recent foray abroad - meant to highlight his ability to be an international leader - has only highlighted the fact that Mitt's foreign policy is as flawed as his domestic plans.
The world is a troubled place, and the United States has no shortage of problems to address and to help resolve. We must confront the rise of China, terrorism in the Middle East and Central Asia, a failed drug war in Mexico and South America, and still continue to be the world's beacon of human rights by standing up for oppressed people and making disaster relief a top priority.
One wonders if Mitt Romney is aware of all the challenges America faces since his words and actions either ignore the problems or exacerbate them. On his recent trip Mitt has spent time doing the following: offending the Brits by stating publicly that they hadn't done due diligence preparing for the Olympics; kissing up to the former president of Poland, because, you know, Poland is the crux of American foreign policy - or because Poland borders former Soviet Republics and Mitt Romney still believes in the Soviet Union; and, most problematically, offending the Palestinians and empowering Israeli warmongers.
Over the last decade, international terrorism has been the top focus for US Foreign Policy. Some of the actions we took were legitimate, others were not. Some of the moves we made were appropriate, others were bungled. Though we have made much progress in eliminating the bad guys, we have done little to address the underlying causes of terrorism - that is, we have progress to make convincing the Arab and Muslim worlds that the United States is not at war against Islam. We are not trying to stamp out Arab/Muslim culture and their way of life. The United States is trying, though perhaps squandering, to use the Arab Spring to help foster a transition from an autocratic, backwards region into a more democratic and thus, hopefully, more tolerant part of the world.
So what does Mitt Romney do? Mitt goes to Israel and begins bashing the Palestinians and throwing his weight behind the Israeli war hawks who want to bomb Iran. What does this do for American interests? For decades Arab autocrats used Israel as a convenient excuse to hide the fact that they abused and oppressed their own people. Despite the fact that Arabs had enough of this treatment and have done away with many of the dictators, the new governments that arise in these countries are hardly going to jump on board the "Friends of Israel" train. In fact, Israel's relationship with Egypt has deteriorated since Mubarak's overthrow, and Israel has managed to offend Turkey - a stable bridge between Europe and the Middle East - as well. The plight of the Palestinians is still an issue for many Arabs and Muslims and casus belli for groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad.
Perhaps those organizations will not ever accept peace with Israel, but many others will. A two-state solution will create the stability necessary for a more permanent and lasting peace in the Middle East, and it would go a long way towards undermining the myth that America is anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, and anti-Palestinian. It is in America and Israel's best interest to foster the creation of Palestine. Enter Mitt Romney who was called a racist by Palestinian officials (the sane ones, not the Hamas variety) for asserting that Israelis are culturally superior to Palestinians thus resulting in the current reality on the ground in which Israel occupies territory that is internationally recognized as belonging to someone else. Put simply, Mitt Romney's current statements - taken in context without further explanation which will probably come - are an endorsement of an apartheid state.
It gets better. Mitt wasn't content with simply putting down one group of people whose future and well-being affects our national security, he gave unequivocal support to Israel's right to launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.
It's worth noting that Israel should and does have the right to protect itself, especially among hostile neighbors - a situation Mitt already made worse. However egging Israel's far right government to attack Iran is dangerous and probably not necessary. Neither the United States nor Israel wants a nuclear Iran, but an attack on Iran at this juncture is an unnecessary and dangerous game to play. Iran's own leaders admit that Western sanctions have crippled the economy, and internally there are strong divisions within the government and the people. Why potentially unify the discordant factions by attacking a nuclear program that has already been hampered by sanctions, computer viruses, and is, by many Western analyses, not yet close to being able to produce a weapon?
There isn't a good answer to that question, except that it resonates politically with others who cannot or will not grasp the realities of the Middle East and how politics there affect our national security. President Obama is right to say that an attack on Iran is on the table. Mitt Romney and Israeli leadership would be right to agree. It should not, under any circumstances, be option number one. The lessons of Iraq and the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan should be more than enough to convince anyone of that...except Mitt Romney.
So without even being President, Mitt Romney took his A-game abroad and undermined President Obama's efforts and foreign policy, and in doing so damaged America's credibility, and quite possibly our national security as well. In a world in which we should all strive for peace and stability both for moral and economic reasons, what motivation do the oppressed peoples of the world's least stable and most violent region have to listen to or negotiate with the wanna-be running for president?
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Monday, July 16, 2012
I'm sorry and I'm not sorry
I'm sorry that I'm not sorry. Mitt Romney has demanded an apology from the President for attacks that he deems to be too personal, although it appears as though he is fudging the truth, and even members of his own party are calling for him to release prior years' worth of tax data because it seems to everyone with an inkling of sense that he has something to hide.
I'm not sorry Mitt is campaigning on the strength of his business experience which means his history in business, the entire crux of his campaign, is open to scrutiny.
I'm not sorry that even if some of what is being said is untrue or false that it is being said. Most of what Mitt and his party say is untrue or false. Remember when Obamacare included death panels? Remember when Obama wasn't born in America? Remember when John Kerry didn't actually fight in Vietnam? All of the sudden this man want an apology because he says he left Bain in 1999 while internal documents list him as the CEO until 2002? I'm sorry that I'm not sorry, Mitt.
Here is what I am sorry about. I am sorry that the American political system is broken. I am sorry that while most Americans including myself are worried about our country's future, both candidates and both political parties are honed in on the past. I've said repeatedly that - depending on the candidate - the Republican party is permanently rooted in either the 1780's, 1950's, or 1980's, although lately the unrelenting and detrimental opposition to any taxes means that the party doesn't fit as neatly into those categories as I suggested.
Now, President Obama is attacking Mitt Romney for his actions or lack thereof 13 years ago. I certainly think that Romney's tenure at Bain should be scrutinized as it is the crux of his campaign, but at a time when I worry about the country's future, I would like both candidates to focus on that future, not the past.
In my last post, I lamented that American was not forward thinking, using the complete disinterest in space exploration as a lens through which to view our nation's lack of foresight. But what better to illustrate the backwards thinking of our politicians than the politicians themselves? I'm going to vote for Obama because I think Mitt Romney lacks both morals and ideas, but is his best strategy to bash the man's record 13 years ago? In 1999 I was 14 and had never heard of Bain. In the time between now and then I've learned enough about to know that there are way better reasons NOT to vote for Mitt Romney than his tenure at Bain.
Similarly, the Republican mantra has become to repeal Obamacare which was passed two years ago and deemed Constitutional just weeks ago. I grant you that two years is more recent than 13, but the whole Republican worldview is decades old, and while Republicans have no problem holding symbolic votes to repeal Obamacare in the House, they haven't offered any alternative to it, probably because it was born in a conservative think tank, and Republicans are noticeably lacking good ideas.
I want a debate between two men who offer me competing visions of the future, not alternative scapegoats from the past. I want someone to assuage my fear that America is losing our place as the world's leader by telling me what we can do to fix our nation's problems. I may not agree with all of that person's ideas, but I'd love to hear from someone who has them. Surely that politician is out there, right? I mean I have ideas, so surely there are a handful of politicians who have them also. I know President Obama has ideas, but the nature of a broken system forces him to launch attacks on the Mitt Romney of 1999. Mitt Romney probably has ideas too. I'd wager they are bad ideas, but he probably has some. I'd like to hear them.
I am a nostalgic person and a history nerd. I love the past, but I understand that while the past has shaped the present, it is the present that will shape the future. So in the present I would like ideas for America's future, not a rehashing of America's past.
I'm not sorry Mitt is campaigning on the strength of his business experience which means his history in business, the entire crux of his campaign, is open to scrutiny.
I'm not sorry that even if some of what is being said is untrue or false that it is being said. Most of what Mitt and his party say is untrue or false. Remember when Obamacare included death panels? Remember when Obama wasn't born in America? Remember when John Kerry didn't actually fight in Vietnam? All of the sudden this man want an apology because he says he left Bain in 1999 while internal documents list him as the CEO until 2002? I'm sorry that I'm not sorry, Mitt.
Here is what I am sorry about. I am sorry that the American political system is broken. I am sorry that while most Americans including myself are worried about our country's future, both candidates and both political parties are honed in on the past. I've said repeatedly that - depending on the candidate - the Republican party is permanently rooted in either the 1780's, 1950's, or 1980's, although lately the unrelenting and detrimental opposition to any taxes means that the party doesn't fit as neatly into those categories as I suggested.
Now, President Obama is attacking Mitt Romney for his actions or lack thereof 13 years ago. I certainly think that Romney's tenure at Bain should be scrutinized as it is the crux of his campaign, but at a time when I worry about the country's future, I would like both candidates to focus on that future, not the past.
In my last post, I lamented that American was not forward thinking, using the complete disinterest in space exploration as a lens through which to view our nation's lack of foresight. But what better to illustrate the backwards thinking of our politicians than the politicians themselves? I'm going to vote for Obama because I think Mitt Romney lacks both morals and ideas, but is his best strategy to bash the man's record 13 years ago? In 1999 I was 14 and had never heard of Bain. In the time between now and then I've learned enough about to know that there are way better reasons NOT to vote for Mitt Romney than his tenure at Bain.
Similarly, the Republican mantra has become to repeal Obamacare which was passed two years ago and deemed Constitutional just weeks ago. I grant you that two years is more recent than 13, but the whole Republican worldview is decades old, and while Republicans have no problem holding symbolic votes to repeal Obamacare in the House, they haven't offered any alternative to it, probably because it was born in a conservative think tank, and Republicans are noticeably lacking good ideas.
I want a debate between two men who offer me competing visions of the future, not alternative scapegoats from the past. I want someone to assuage my fear that America is losing our place as the world's leader by telling me what we can do to fix our nation's problems. I may not agree with all of that person's ideas, but I'd love to hear from someone who has them. Surely that politician is out there, right? I mean I have ideas, so surely there are a handful of politicians who have them also. I know President Obama has ideas, but the nature of a broken system forces him to launch attacks on the Mitt Romney of 1999. Mitt Romney probably has ideas too. I'd wager they are bad ideas, but he probably has some. I'd like to hear them.
I am a nostalgic person and a history nerd. I love the past, but I understand that while the past has shaped the present, it is the present that will shape the future. So in the present I would like ideas for America's future, not a rehashing of America's past.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Back to the Future
If you read this blog consistently you know that I am a strong proponent of human space travel, and the importance of scientific exploration both for its own sake, and for the economic and national security implications. I have lamented the end of the shuttle program, lauded the success of SpaceX, and even offered praise to Newt Gingrich of all people for be willing to look forward on such an important issue.
Sadly, it appears as though Newt is the only American politician who shares my love of space and the recognition that investing in space technologies is imperative for continued preeminence. Though American politicians are remarkably shortsighted about this, the Chinese have a firm grasp the idea.
I applaud the private sector approach to space exploration that Obama has championed, but I'm also angry at the President for not investing more in what was once the world's premier space agency. While American politicians - and perhaps American voters - worry about the near future, we are ceding the longterm battle in a number of realms, chief among them alternative energy and space technology.
It shouldn't be necessary for me to point out the tangible benefits we have already reaped from our investment in space travel. New products and technologies that benefit consumers are direct spinoffs from NASA programs, and American national security depends on space technology. We are currently decades ahead in the field, but a gap that currently exists in decades will dwindle to years quickly, and without further investment we will be the ones looking up to another space-based superpower.
The American economy, American military, and American people have a future in space. We have the means to reinvest in NASA, and to benefit from its revitalization, but we lack the will power, and everyday that we cede to China or other countries is one day in which the stagnant American space program loses ground in a field that will have profound implications on our economic and military future.
We need to go back to the future, back to when a generation of Americans looked in awe to the stars and what could be achieved among them. Back to when these words rang true, "We choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
America's future as well as the future of humanity lies in space. If our politicians could be imbued with the foresight that their Chinese counterparts display, perhaps we would take steps to reinvigorate a space program that has been a boon to Americans in the past and could be again in the future.
Sadly, it appears as though Newt is the only American politician who shares my love of space and the recognition that investing in space technologies is imperative for continued preeminence. Though American politicians are remarkably shortsighted about this, the Chinese have a firm grasp the idea.
I applaud the private sector approach to space exploration that Obama has championed, but I'm also angry at the President for not investing more in what was once the world's premier space agency. While American politicians - and perhaps American voters - worry about the near future, we are ceding the longterm battle in a number of realms, chief among them alternative energy and space technology.
It shouldn't be necessary for me to point out the tangible benefits we have already reaped from our investment in space travel. New products and technologies that benefit consumers are direct spinoffs from NASA programs, and American national security depends on space technology. We are currently decades ahead in the field, but a gap that currently exists in decades will dwindle to years quickly, and without further investment we will be the ones looking up to another space-based superpower.
The American economy, American military, and American people have a future in space. We have the means to reinvest in NASA, and to benefit from its revitalization, but we lack the will power, and everyday that we cede to China or other countries is one day in which the stagnant American space program loses ground in a field that will have profound implications on our economic and military future.
We need to go back to the future, back to when a generation of Americans looked in awe to the stars and what could be achieved among them. Back to when these words rang true, "We choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
America's future as well as the future of humanity lies in space. If our politicians could be imbued with the foresight that their Chinese counterparts display, perhaps we would take steps to reinvigorate a space program that has been a boon to Americans in the past and could be again in the future.
Friday, July 6, 2012
Taxes or Penalties?
Welcome to the silliest non-debate of the month: if I don't buy health insurance as mandated by the new healthcare law, am I paying a tax or a penalty? This is a new nadir in the national political discourse. We are now arguing semantics, not policies, not politics, but semantics. Am I paying a tax or a penalty?
This stems from Chief Justice Roberts' decision to uphold the mandate by calling it a tax, thus maintaining that Congress has the right to levy taxes. Republicans were quick to seize upon this as a tax increase. Democrats were just as quick to maintain that it was a penalty imposed upon those who choose not to buy insurance. It obviously doesn't matter. If you choose not to buy insurance, you owe money. The term is irrelevant. The law was upheld. The tax, penalty, fine, or whatever it is will be collected regardless of how we choose to define it.
Perhaps, in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling, and after years of "debate" on the topic we should move on. There are, after all, a multitude of other issues to address. I tick these off every third or fourth post, so I'll spare you the laundry list here, but if we think the future of the country hinges on any one issue, even one as big as healthcare reform, we are kidding ourselves. The battle has been fought. The law could be improved, but the conversation isn't about improving it. Am I paying a tax or a penalty?
I often ponder what America's most pressing concern is, and I arrive at a number of different conclusions depending on the day, but the argument about taxing or penalizing has led me to fear that the answer is our political system. There are so many things that need fixing, so many issues to address, and yet this is where we find ourselves: Am I paying a tax or a penalty? No one knows, no one cares, it doesn't matter. But it is at the center of American political discourse. The system is failing us. Every day that we spend debating semantics is a day we don't address our future.
Taxes or penalties? I hope our politicians solve this pressing issue in a timely manner so that maybe, just maybe, please, they can try to fix our other problems.
This stems from Chief Justice Roberts' decision to uphold the mandate by calling it a tax, thus maintaining that Congress has the right to levy taxes. Republicans were quick to seize upon this as a tax increase. Democrats were just as quick to maintain that it was a penalty imposed upon those who choose not to buy insurance. It obviously doesn't matter. If you choose not to buy insurance, you owe money. The term is irrelevant. The law was upheld. The tax, penalty, fine, or whatever it is will be collected regardless of how we choose to define it.
Perhaps, in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling, and after years of "debate" on the topic we should move on. There are, after all, a multitude of other issues to address. I tick these off every third or fourth post, so I'll spare you the laundry list here, but if we think the future of the country hinges on any one issue, even one as big as healthcare reform, we are kidding ourselves. The battle has been fought. The law could be improved, but the conversation isn't about improving it. Am I paying a tax or a penalty?
I often ponder what America's most pressing concern is, and I arrive at a number of different conclusions depending on the day, but the argument about taxing or penalizing has led me to fear that the answer is our political system. There are so many things that need fixing, so many issues to address, and yet this is where we find ourselves: Am I paying a tax or a penalty? No one knows, no one cares, it doesn't matter. But it is at the center of American political discourse. The system is failing us. Every day that we spend debating semantics is a day we don't address our future.
Taxes or penalties? I hope our politicians solve this pressing issue in a timely manner so that maybe, just maybe, please, they can try to fix our other problems.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Happy Birthday America
America turns 236 today. That's older than either of my parents, which means America is pretty old. As I prepare to watch some celebratory fireworks later, I can't help but be reminded how lucky I am to live in the greatest country in the world.
Happy birthday, America!
Happy birthday, America!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)