President Obama's Four-Pronged Foreign Policy

Last week, President Obama used a commencement address at West Point to summarize his administration’s approach to foreign policy issues. He told the future military leaders, “The question we face . . . is not whether America will lead but how we will lead, not just to secure our peace and prosperity but also to extend peace and prosperity around the globe.”

            President Obama described three aspects of foreign policy:

1.            When a global issue does not pose a direct threat to the United States, he argues that our policy should be to “mobilize allies and partners to take collective action.”

2.            When terrorism is the threat, the goal should be to “more effectively partner with countries where terrorist networks seek a foothold” and use a strategy that “expands our reach without sending forces that stretch our military too thin or stir up local resentments.”

3.            When the goal is to strengthen and enforce international order, “it has been our willingness to work through multilateral channels that kept the world on our side.”   This kind of leadership, he argued, is American strength in action.

The speech was attacked as pulling America back from the global leadership role it has had since the end of World War I.  In a country weary of war, the fear seems to be that this approach will be seen as a sign of weakness by leaders in places like China and Russia, which remain ideological and political competitors.  His argument, in return, is that “what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law; it is our willingness to affirm them through our actions.” 

            Finally, he notes, “America does not simply stand for stability or the absence of conflict no matter what the cost”—which could be seen as weaknesses by international foes.  Instead, he asserts, “we stand for the more lasting peace that can only come through opportunity and freedom for people everywhere.”   In this context, he argues for a fourth element of foreign policy:  “Our willingness to act on behalf of human dignity”—which is a real national security interest in a global society.  “Democracies,” he says, are our closest friends and are far less likely to go to war.  Economies based on free and open markets perform better and become markets for our goods.  Respect for human rights is an antidote to instability and the grievances that fuel violence and terror.”

            The speech was roundly attacked by those who fear that, in a war-weary country, America will back away from military confrontation and be unwilling to act in its own best interests.  However, President Obama noted that, in the 21^st century—a century defined by global communications and international interdependencies—“American isolationism is not an option.  We don’t have a choice to ignore what happens beyond our borders.” 

            The point of his speech, it seems to me, is that we need to have multiple strategies at hand and be prepared to use them as the situation demands.   This is not a new idea.   Historian Stephen Ambrose, in his historian’s memoir To America, quoted two thought leaders of the 1960s whose ideas remain powerful today.  He quotes Walter Lippman “American can exert its greatest influence in the outer world by demonstrating at home that the latest and most complex modern society can solve the problems of modernity. . . . Example, and not intervention and firepower, has been the historic instrument of American influence on mankind, and never has it been more necessary and more urgent to realize this truth once more.”  And, William Fullbright: “The world has no need, in this age of nationalism and nuclear weapons, for a new imperial power, but there is a great need of moral leadership—by which I mean the leadership of decent example.”

            President Obama’s foreign policy is an attempt to expand America’s foreign policy toolkit so that we can better respond to the challenges and demands of a rapidly changing world and retain true world leadership in the face of resurgent Russian nationalism, expanding Chinese monolithic approach to capitalism, and the ideological frenzy of Islamic jihadism.  It is the right policy for our times.

GM's $35 Million Fine: The Right Punishment?

General Motors received the largest fine that the federal government could levy as a result of corporate lawbreaking that resulted in more than 30 deaths of U.S. citizens.  The amount sounds large, but it is a pittance against GM multi-billion-dollar annual revenue and it certainly is not enough to compensate the families of the dead.
     I wonder:  The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that corporations, like General Motors, are considered as "people"--associations of individuals--for the purposes of being able to invest in political campaigns.  Perhaps, then, they should be considered as"people" when they commit crimes.  In this case, this particular association of individuals has been responsible, thus far, with the deaths of more than 30 other individual citizens through recklessness and purposeful hiding of information about the danger their product represented.  Perhaps, in a case like this, individuals responsible should be charged with criminal negligence resulting in 30+ deaths.
     Corporations should not have it both ways.



G.M. Is Fined Over Safety and Called a Lawbreaker - NYTimes.com

TIme to De-Politicize the Climate Debate

The latest report on global warming--summarized in today's Washington Post-- is that the impact of climate change is already being felt.  It is time for us to de-politicize this issue.  We cannot allow corporate interests--like the Koch brothers and other one-percenters who use their oil money to control politicians and sway public thinking--to continue to keep us from addressing these issues.   This is not about preserving wealth in the oil industry.  It is about everyone.



U.S. climate report says global warming impact already severe - The Washington Post

Investing Journalistic Resources

It has been hard not to notice, over the past few weeks, the incredible amount of energy—and human resources—that CNN has invested in the disappearance of Malaysia Flight 307.   Their coverage of other tragedies pales by comparison.

This was brought home today when a six-year-old boy brought a 45mm handgun to school in the same district where my grandson goes to kindergarten.  It reminded me of all the school shootings that have made the headlines on CNN and elsewhere over the years, from Columbine to the knifings in the Murrysville, Pa., high school earlier this month.  The Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in December 2012 gained a fair amount of coverage, but that, too, became old news after a few weeks. 

Wouldn’t it be nice if CNN—or MSNBC or CBS or Fox—decided to stay with these stories, keeping them in the public consciousness (and conscience) and exploring the implications.  I am not suggesting a continuing rant on gun control (Piers Morgan tried that, to his detriment), but follow-up investigation about the impact of this and other massacres on the individuals and communities involved.  How have the families of the murdered children fared in the 18 months since Sandy Hook?  What new policies are schools around the nation implementing to avoid a similar disaster?  How has the family of the perpetrator responded?  What new laws, if any, are being considered?  What kinds of counseling services were implemented?  How has the event affected home sales or business start-ups in the community?  In other words, how has the Sandy Hook massacre affected, long-term, life in that community?  What can other communities learn from the experience? 

Since Sandy Hook in December 2012, there have been at least 58 additional school shootings—at both public schools and higher education—in the United States.  This does not include the knifings in Murrysville, just shootings.  Given how common this sort of thing is in the U.S., perhaps it would even be good to compare events and look for commonalities that might help us better predict and, perhaps, avoid future killings.

It seems to me that this would be much more in the community interest than a continuing story line about a lost airplane.   Responsible news agencies, one could argue, should invest their resources in stories that have a true public impact.   The continued violence in our culture is worth at least as much attention.

Voter Rights: The New Civil Rights Movement

It has occurred to me recently that the Tea Party folks missed the point somewhat when they chose their name.  The Boston Tea Party was not a protest about taxes.  It was a protest about being taxed without representation.  The Bostonians were complaining that the British oligarchs had imposed a tea tax on the colonies without colonists having any valid representation in Parliament, so that their needs would be considered in the process of making laws that affected them.

I was reminded of this important distinction as we celebrate the 50^th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.   These remarkable laws enfranchised millions of Americans to fully participate in our society by allowing them to fully participate in the election process.   Half a century later, I fear we have already taken big steps backward to disenfranchise our citizens.  In the process, we run the risk of creating a new oligarchy at a scale and rate that will destroy American democracy.   Three examples illustrate the problem:

1.            Gerrymandering.   I live in Central Pennsylvania, where my university town has been divided up so that it is part of several conservative, rural state assembly districts, essentially nullifying any liberal tendencies of the university community.   This idea—of re-engineering district borders in order to ensure conservative majorities—has been a national conservative strategy for years. 

2.            Voter  Disenfranchisement.    Throughout the Obama administration, we have seen states attempting to limit access to the poor and racial minorities by requiring visual ID, limiting voting hours, etc.  The impact here is to disenfranchise specific classes of individual voters entirely.  This year, for instance, the Huffington Post reported that Ohio reduced early voting and decided that voting places will close at 5 p.m. on Election Day.  The result is to effectively block access for many working-class citizens, minorities, and seniors.

3.             The Influence of Special Interests.   The Citizens United and, most recently, McCutcheon rulings give corporations and other “associations of individuals” the ability to give huge amounts of money to political candidates.   The impact is to essentially compromise our elected officials, leaving individual citizens with no real power as citizens and no real representation in government.  This is today’s equivalent of the tea tax that led to the Boston tea party.

The result is that, 50 years after the passage of the Voter Rights Act, many American citizens no longer have full access to representation.  Some have been denied the opportunity through redistricting that puts them in a permanent minority position; others have been denied access to the voting booth.  And, regardless of who wins, many candidates are compromised by the huge amounts of money invested in their elections by corporations and other special interests, leaving individual citizens with no practical representation.

What we need is not a Tea Party focused on eliminating government services for citizens, but a new Civil Rights movement that is committed to ensuring that all Citizens have equal and effective access to representation at the State and Federal levels.  

Leonard Pittts, Jr. and Arizona

Leonard Pitts Jr.: Boycott Arizona | Leonard Pitts Jr. | CentreDaily.com

Leonard Pitts, Jr., has written what I think is an important column about the pending Arizona law that would allow people to discriminate based on their religious beliefs.

We are a nation of immigrants.  The fundamental fact about Americans is that we all come from different places, with different cultures, different traditions, etc.  What we share in common is that we are Americans and honor the principles of equality on which our nation was created.  As we become Americans, we tend to create two cultures.  One is the private culture of our family traditions.  The other is the public culture of being an American in a great democracy.  Tolerance for the beliefs of others is what makes it possible for all of us to honor our personal/familial/cultural traditions while maintaining a free society.  The democracy of a nation of immigrants cannot survive if each of us is to put our private beliefs above our public commitment to equality.

This is not a freedom of religion issue, as much as the Arizona legislature wants to call it that.  It is a license for intolerance.

Thanks to the Beatles on their 50th Anniversary in the US

Tonight marks the 50^th anniversary of the Beatles’ premiere on American television—The Ed Sullivan Show—back in 1964. 

I was working at Little Italy, a family-owned restaurant in Hermitage, at the time.  The owners, Mr. and Mrs. Bishop, brought in a TV and we watched it there.   

I saw the Beatles in 1966.  They were playing at the Cleveland baseball stadium.  That was the year I graduated from high school.  I was working at the local Arby’s, and a group of us drove up to Cleveland for the concert.  We parked outside the city and took a trolley into town.  We had lunch and then went over to the hotel where the Beatles were staying.  Saw nothing, but enjoyed the crowd.

In those days, the amplification systems were not yet powerful enough for full-stadium concerts, so the stage was set on second base and the seating went around from first base to third base.  Our seats were close to first base.  The Beatles were great.  But, when the opening guitar riff for “Day Tripper” started, the crowd went wild and kids stormed the stage.  Police had set up snow fence around the track and tried to hold back the crowd, but to no avail.  The Beatles retreated to a trailer set behind the stage until things got settled down and then came out and finished their set.  On the trolley back to our car, we saw several people who carried souvenirs of the concert.  One had one the first (or third) base bag.  Another had the neck of a guitar.

The Beatles—along with Bob Dylan, the Rolling Stones, and a few others—continued to provide social markers for us through college.  I remember the day the White Album came out, for instance, and we gathered in a friend’s apartment to listen to it for the first time.  Many thanks to them all for giving a soundtrack to our generation.