To determine survival, one must first know what something was and what it is, so that a judgment can be made on what it becomes. Thus it is important to first identify community, character, their relationship, and how they are threatened, if at all, by globalization. A community can be regarded as a set of interactions or human behaviors—actions and understandings based on shared expectations, values, beliefs and meanings between individuals. These values and beliefs are, in turn, products of traditional and experiential development. Communities are naturally exclusive. A community’s strength of character is its willingness to maintain its particular identity apart from globalized interests. Character is an investment by a community in itself. While character is essential for the preservation of a community, it abounds from whatever inherent strengths and virtues the community espouses. Character functions to uphold the community standards, maintain its healthy traditions, and incorporate modernity as needed. While strength of character is an unrelenting pursuit of community interest, it must be an interest healthy for the community’s entirety, not just economical. The survival of a community, and thus the survival of character, is dependent on a continually discerning approach.
Communities are continued by like-minded posterity, and as such exist as recognizable constructs far older than any of their living members, constructs that will likely continue through generations. Ultimately, a community is beyond its very components, members, or even a geographical location. It is self-sufficient, existing without external need or dependency. Though attributes such as race and religion often aid in identifying a community, it is reducible, as a concept, to individuals with a common interest. Character is the measurement of a community’s ideals embodied in an individual or the group as a whole. Strength of character is determined by the capacity to preserve the communal traditions, and its variances of conviction affect the motivations and inclinations of any individual when making judgment or decisions. Community interests are not always synonymous or harmonious with the same community’s traditions, and at times it is necessary for individuals to serve their interests, as well as those of their community, even if against tradition. Provided these individuals do so with strong character, and they act for the good of the community, the traditions deemed most essential will be preserved and the community will ultimately endure.
Within the context of global trade and interactions, communities are simplified and amalgamated into a nation. Common interests become national interests, though individual traditions and ideals may not be identical or complementary; some amount of unity is necessarily lost. While nations, as a whole, appear to readily benefit from the plentiful labor, cheap consumption, and massive spending that comes with increased globalization, individual communities often do not. In a globalized economy, national interests often conflict with those of their comprising communities. The practical difference with the modern concept of globalization is that nations are no longer limited to trading goods or raw materials. As the tendency towards outsourcing grows, the protective element of national borders, formerly in place to protect communities, is not a prerogative of economic nations inclined towards globalization. It was not until the 1970s that the percentage of world GDP in foreign assets recouped the integration seen in the early 1900s. From 1870 until 1914, at the height of European imperialism and nationalist preoccupations, massive amounts of capital were sent from Europe and the Americas to areas of recent settlement with plentiful natural resources, but not cheap labor. Unlike today, developed nations were paying for raw materials but reserving the manufacturing jobs for domestic workers. In these circumstances, communities were not sacrificing domestic labor for national interest in foreign development. Furthermore, the governing opinions on globalization and free trade were far from homogeneous. Developed European nations, as well as the United States, specified protective tariffs, particularly affecting domestic agriculture, and the policies often changed with every new political election. Since the 1970s, the prevailing aspiration of many nations has been a modern, highly globalized economy that dissolves borders—a policy regarding globalization as an indisputable good. Robyn Meredith, Senior Editor at Forbes, offers a sufficient rendition of this trend:
Cut to 2007, and the numbers are in: The protesters and do-gooders are just plain wrong. It turns out globalization is good--and not just for the rich, but especially for the poor. The booming economies of India and China--the Elephant and the Dragon--have lifted 200 million people out of abject poverty in the 1990s as globalization took off, the International Monetary Fund says.
For proponents of globalization, the free flow and exchange of goods and services has flooded world markets with cheap, plentiful goods and labor saving devices for the benefit of anyone with money to spend.
Such approaches attempt to simplify what is, by virtue of its being a global issue, a very complicated situation. They do so by equivocating national interests and national measures of wealth with the well-being of individual communities—those on both sides of the global trade paradigm. Dr. Paul Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, notes with distaste:
Desirous of demonstrating that globalization is creating more US jobs than it is destroying; normally sound economists are making fundamental analytical and empirical errors… As long as most economists and elected officials remain in total denial, we are unlikely to do anything about it.
The 1970s saw new highs in foreign asset investment, and even against the oil and debt crisis of the latter 1970s and early 1980s, promised increased consumption through global labor arbitrage. This mantra, as Dr. Roberts points out, is still repeated today. Even in the midst of the worst unemployment rates since the Great Depression, U.S. corporations continue to offshore jobs and to replace their remaining US employees with lower paid foreigners on work visas. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, poverty rates that were declining in the 1950s and 1960s spiked and stayed relatively static since the later 1970s. While outsourcing was helpful for China and India in way of employment, it has not been correspondingly helpful to the U.S. The G.I. Bill, war development loans, private saving, and rationing of World War II left post-war Americans benefitting from high levels of education, technology, and capital. The American workforce was highly productive and had little to fear from cheaper, foreign labor working with less capital and technology. However, the increased privatization in Europe, China, and Mexico in the 1980s, along with the collapse of the Soviet Empire, created investment opportunities abroad where skilled but unemployed labor was available. This explains the shift from colonial globalization to modern, with its new investment priorities. In this modern period, capital and technology are easily transferrable, and all other factors being relatively equal, are appropriated towards the cheapest labor supplies. Technology and capital were not so easily transferred in the early 1900s with cost-efficient results. Instead, the preoccupation was with the importation of raw materials to industrial complexes with better skilled and better paid workers. According to Roberts, globalism is a direct threat to U.S. living standards:
A number of economic factors, such as existing contracts and mortgage debt, make it impossible for U.S. wages and salaries to quickly adjust downward to Chinese and Indian levels. Therefore, Americans will continue to lose ground in the global labor market.
For communities in the United States, the cost of globalization is a loss in employment.
Roberts and Meredith encapsulate the difficulty in gauging the value of globalization. They both come from the same nation, but as seen by their conflicting opinions, come from different academic communities. Meredith values the economic benefit that globalization brings in the form of foreign job creation and cheap consumption. Roberts values domestic jobs, if at a higher cost of consumption, and bemoans the loss of domestic employment—in essence emphasizing the economic costs of globalization. Meredith continues, “As the Chindia (Chinese-Indian) revolution spreads, the ranks of the poor get smaller, not larger. In the 1990s, as Vietnam's economy grew 6% a year, the number of people living in poverty fell 7% annually; in Uganda, when GDP growth passed 3%, the number fell 6% per year”. She refers to the same privatization as Roberts, but excludes the negative effects he emphasizes so heavily: “China unleashed its economy in 1978, seeding capitalism first among farmers newly freed to sell the fruits of their fields instead of handing the produce over to Communist Party collectives”. Meredith is concerned with financial improvement regardless of community or nationality, citing with pride how Starbucks now serves coffee within the Forbidden City—a particularly contentious issue with the Public Citizen Group against whom she is arguing. The Chinese and Indian economies are growing, as are the standards of living almost everywhere foreign capital goes. Considered in isolation, this prosperity is a good, but it does seem that certain elements of tradition, in this case oriental, have been compromised. It is ultimately up to those Chinese and Indians with strong character to decide what is most valuable, and up to them to create a balance between economic progress and cultural preservation. If the communities comprising the growing economy have re-orchestrated their ideals and values solely towards economic prosperity, then contemporary character and community would survive. The traditional aspects of their communities, however, will likely be forfeit, especially on a national level, where they cannot be represented as ubiquitous national traditions. The Chinese, as a nation, don’t necessarily value the Forbidden City as an austere and untouchable icon, though some Chinese communities do.
Roberts addresses the spending side of globalization, and observes a country of communities once known for economic thrift and prudence failing to preserve their traditions or even serve the immediate interests of economic well being. He asks, “Will the U.S. still be a superpower when it can no longer make anything and is dependent on foreigners for manufactured goods?” The United States, an alliance of fifty greater communities, is running a massive trade deficit and losing income as more and more U.S. assets are forfeited overseas. The argument for globalization, that this loss is being more than made up for in cheaper goods, will soon be without merit, according to Roberts, as the U.S. dollar depreciates in value. While living standards increase elsewhere, they decrease in America, and the new sector of the American economy supposed to fill the manufacturing void, information technology, is also being outsourced at what is, for Roberts, an alarming rate. For the United States, globalization seems to bring less economic well-being and has developed a destructive attitude among U.S. consumers. Modern outsourcing has caused America’s domestic demand for labor to decrease dramatically. Between January 2001 and May 2003, US manufacturing jobs declined by 13.3 percent, and the jobs continue to decrease. Every state and the District of Columbia have lost manufacturing employment in the range of 15-21 percent over the last ten years.
Nations can borrow on debt, as the United States continues to do, but individual communities cannot. When nations enter into trade, they utilize their productive resources. In the United States-China relationship, the U.S. has borrowing power while China has labor to its advantage. When a nation absorbs more than it produces, it must necessarily borrow from abroad. While Congress expands the federal debt limit, manufacturing-centered communities like those in Detroit or Lexington North Carolina wither away. A greater concern is the lessened emphasis on actual ownership and the moral hazard this brings. Part of the recent U.S. recession had to do with default mortgages and defunct credit. Americans seem to place less and less value on hard work, patience, and consolidated ownership. Wassily Leontief observed that the U.S. exported labor intensive commodities in the 1950s and 1960s—contrary to then-contemporary economic theory and quite contrary to today. Any association of communities which once lent money to the world, as the exceedingly industrial United States did during and after World War II, cannot be in sequence with tradition or its values if it now perpetuates its own debt—an act showing a substantial lack of character for those community leaders who do so.
Because of the trade deficit, American communities must borrow to support higher living standards than they can produce, while many Chinese communities are producing better than they can afford. All of the communities involved have become dependent, though Robert’s fears of a devalued dollar have been abated so far by the Chinese Government pegging the yen. Foreign investors, like the U.S., have become dependent on cheap imports to make their joblessness acceptable. None of these parties sound like strong nations comprised of strong communities—communities that can reconcile current interests with a preservation of their traditional ideals. Global trade is no longer just an advantage or particular and small aspect of a protective community. It has been lumped into the greater goal of globalization, now held to be a necessary constant. A community that depends on foreign involvement is a community that will eventually buy into a new culture as well—in this case a culture of rapid consumption. While this may satisfy immediate community needs, the new culture will be incompatible with the community’s traditions and inherited ideals. Economic well being is distinct from cultural well being, and of course is of varying importance to any given culture. The economic interests of a community can be served in keeping with all of the community’s traditions, but often are not. Modern globalization, defined by its differences from globalism in the early 1900s, is setting a new trend of its own, and by nature of its reliance on progressive technologies, is very rarely in keeping with community heritage.
Many of the pro-globalism economists argue that globalization with tampered exchange rates isn’t ideal, and that any negative effects in the global exchange can be explained by monetary control. This is another example of varying communal priorities. The Chinese orchestrators of globalism, for example, value being exporters, and thus peg their currency. Many American communities, who are used to significant buying power, value international trade when complemented by domestic employment. While American buying power remains strong due to China’s policy, the nation at large will be unwilling to sacrifice cheap goods for higher levels of employment. However unemployment within American communities is likely to conflict with their traditions and put a strain on their cultural wellbeing. As the problem with unemployment grows, communities will begin to politically mechanize controls to the same effect of the Chinese—unregulated globalism is not really possible.
The interests of communities that coincide with the exigencies of globalization will survive, but the traditions and interests that conflict with it will not. William Baldwin, a self-proclaimed critic of Meredith says, “We are unmistakably enriched when China dumps products on our markets too cheaply”. This would only be true if consumerism were the be all and end all of America’s existence. But the cheap consumption and instant gratification of globalization are hardly in keeping with the characteristic traditions of many American communities. Consider the traditional, American Dream maxim: hard work, patience, and perseverance will yield anyone of any community their desires for liberty and happiness. It was this ideal that brought so many otherwise different communities together. But the reckless, materialistic pursuit Baldwin advances so fervently necessitates no hard work or patience. As long as China keeps offloading cheap goods, one doesn’t have to work hard or aspire to anything more. The older American community is dead and buried with its virtues. It has become an anachronism that will serve as little more than a dull heading towards the back of a textbook. Likewise, in an era of aggressive globalization, exporting communities cannot afford to prioritize based on inward needs, as they will be focusing on foreign demand. The unmarketable aspects of the old will fade as communities strive to interest foreign buyers.
New communities can form or develop as long as they maintain common interests and individuals with the strength of character to pursue them. Globalization, though it may contain economic incentive, is a pursuit pragmatically opposed to the independent community. The polis, the local community, exists to protect the interests of its citizens from external pressures. In the 21st century, the conflict of globalism is between private communities and global forces. When communities attempt to globalize, they abandon their foundations. While these traditional communities seem doomed as the world becomes more and more economically integrated, this isn’t to say that new pseudo-communities won’t form or possess some small piece of their original virtue. However, these new commonwealths are products of globalization. They can be sustained only by globalization, and are wholly subject to its every ebb and flow. If there is a recession, they will also diminish; such is the risk of abandoning all self-sufficiency. Sufficiency can be, and was, complemented by international trade. Trade proved inadequate for the nations involved with the apparent benefits of rampant outsourcing. While nations may benefit from globalization, communities do not. Communities can trade, but they cannot globalize and remain a distinct community; it is an existential paradox. Individuals with strong character can accommodate inevitable change and reconcile the community’s traditional ideals with modern interests. However, globalization, the external search for economic security, has become incompatible with necessary self-reliance for community survival. The new global groups are centered on economic considerations that will take little account of traditional mores. The economist studies individuals living in a world of scarcity. Societies produced by globalization, whose character will be defined by economic interest, will be driven by individual inclinations toward personal gain rather than communal integrity.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Thursday, December 3, 2009
America Now, Then, and Now
This year has been one of extreme turbulence in the American political scene. Any pensions for moderation have been long lost. With fair cause, allegations of left-wing socialism and right-wing libertarianism are commonly, derisively exchanged in the American forum, and a preoccupation with the purported evil of the opposition often detours any political machinations from an active pursuit of good. So seldom now are political discussions about the means to an agreeable end; so often are they diatribes to further cement diametrical ideologies. Defining, categorizing, and simplifying, most often along political, racial, and religious guidelines are the methods of the day. With the ill-will between political factions and identities at an amazing high (and again, not necessarily without good reason), it is helpful to remember those moments of excellent inter-political cooperation, when Americans were still able to form that more perfect union in active resistance of great evil.
Such was the case with the 1948-1949 Airlift, perhaps the most brusque ebullition of American initiative and ingenuity in the entire 20th century. Though divided amongst the Allied forces after WWII, Berlin was entirely enclosed and isolated in the greater Soviet portion of Germany. To gain control of the city, Soviet forces blockaded all railways and roads into Berlin, hoping through this threat of starvation to stimulate enough discontent that an uprising would occur in Berlin and allow the communization of Germany proper. A Democrat president, Harry Truman, and a majority Republican legislature signed/voted the Marshall Plan into effect, and from June 24th, 1948, until May 12th, 1949, the Allied airlift kept the badly damaged German capital, which was meeting only 2% of its vital production needs, supplied with adequate food and coal until the blockade was lifted by the much-shamed Soviets. A total of 278, 228 flights, flying a total 92 million miles, provided 13,000 tons of food and 26, 000 tons of coal per day to Berlin, and at its height the airlift actually brought more supplies into the city, per day, than had been previously been brought by ground. The Airlift was sustained through the exceptionally harsh winter of 1949, and was run so efficiently that one plane departed for Berlin from an Allied base every 30 seconds. The United States dropped 1,783,573 of the Allied contribution 2,326,406 tons food and coal, at a total cost of $224 million, which if adjusted to modern inflated standards equals $2 billion. For less than half the cost of what the U.S. pays Israel and Pakistan annually to not fight each other, the United States kept Berlin fed, heated, out of communist control, and did it all by plane.
There was a time when objective, eminent goods were easily recognized, if for no other reason than Americans then had a lot more in common. Admittedly, few issues are as black and white as the Berlin Blockade, but the loss of an enemy like the USSR should not mean a loss in moralistic temperance. Now the accused socialists seem to be pursuing a crippling spending policy, while the accused ultra-conservatives advance their “don’t spend to help anybody anywhere” policy. This can all be seen within the context of any one issue—say health-care reform, foreign aid, or troop presence abroad. Perhaps the contrast between need and want is not as obvious as it once was, but the necessary moralistic perspective seems largely lost amidst the current political segregation. The American political dialogue may have broken down, but America’s enemies, the enemies of life, liberty and happiness, have not. The same pride and perseverance that shocked the world in the Berlin airlift, appears to be fretfully dwindling.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Hot and Steamy Premonitions
Though modern science has been unable to give any formal explanation, it has been well documented that many animals, domesticated and wild, behave in an abnormal, anticipatory fashion before natural disasters. Most recently in Thailand, but with many tsunamis and earthquakes, people report their pets moving erratically and congregating on higher ground, usually moments before some cataclysm renders man and beats homeless alike. But without a numerated cause, without a lengthy theory supported by lots of big words, ambiguous experts and pie charts (everybody likes pie), can ma really rationalize and learn form this phenomenon?
Superseding all of these isolated, though nonetheless tragic, disasters, is the end all and be all, the ultimate come uppins' for scientific man: Global Warming. With national leaders such as UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer predicting simultaneous droughts, floods, and famines--which the less enlightened may think to be mutually exclusive-- it may seem as though people will finally be good and prepared for the coming catastrophe. Al Gore, the peaceful promulgator of carbon awareness and environmental consideration, put his money where his mouth is, and the $75 million he loaned to Silver Springs Networks, an energy-saving technology company, was backed by the U.S. government, which has directed $3.4 billion in aid and development--all in addition to the recent motions in the Senate. Still, there are those naysayers, those who refuse to board Noah's Ark even as the ice caps begin to melt. The Frederick Seitz Project, a petition signed by 31, 478 scientists attesting to the invalidity of man-made global warming, demonstrates the stubbornness of those self-proclaimed educated who cannot see what others feel all around them.
Man would do well to heed the forewarnings of his four-legged friends, and while he has often rued his past neglect, nature has again come knocking. All of the female South American spotted bears at the Leipzig zoo in Germany have lost their hair, clearly in anticipation of the coming global warmth. The sudden change has veterinarians baffled, and while many insist it is some sort of sudden onset genetic disorder, a lack of additional symptoms or adverse health effects yields little credence to this theory. It is early November, but instead of growing an increasingly thick coat as normal and undisturbed bears would this time of year, these prognosticating creatures have taken the coming climate change into consideration. Visitors have been bombarding the the Leipzig Zoo in record number to marvel at the bizarre spectacle; one hopes they will take more away from the experience than a few awkward photographs. The spotted bear, the only indigenous bear of South America, is listed as "vulnerable to extinction" by the International union for the Conservation of Nature, and supposedly has lost over thirty percent of its natural habitat to human encroachment. If people do not heed these anticipatory creatures, if they dismiss the Bear's sudden baldness as an unexplained, unsubstantiated bit of fun like so many are dismissing global warming, then the spotted bear may soon be finding the world a much more spacious place.
After:
Before:
Superseding all of these isolated, though nonetheless tragic, disasters, is the end all and be all, the ultimate come uppins' for scientific man: Global Warming. With national leaders such as UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer predicting simultaneous droughts, floods, and famines--which the less enlightened may think to be mutually exclusive-- it may seem as though people will finally be good and prepared for the coming catastrophe. Al Gore, the peaceful promulgator of carbon awareness and environmental consideration, put his money where his mouth is, and the $75 million he loaned to Silver Springs Networks, an energy-saving technology company, was backed by the U.S. government, which has directed $3.4 billion in aid and development--all in addition to the recent motions in the Senate. Still, there are those naysayers, those who refuse to board Noah's Ark even as the ice caps begin to melt. The Frederick Seitz Project, a petition signed by 31, 478 scientists attesting to the invalidity of man-made global warming, demonstrates the stubbornness of those self-proclaimed educated who cannot see what others feel all around them.
Man would do well to heed the forewarnings of his four-legged friends, and while he has often rued his past neglect, nature has again come knocking. All of the female South American spotted bears at the Leipzig zoo in Germany have lost their hair, clearly in anticipation of the coming global warmth. The sudden change has veterinarians baffled, and while many insist it is some sort of sudden onset genetic disorder, a lack of additional symptoms or adverse health effects yields little credence to this theory. It is early November, but instead of growing an increasingly thick coat as normal and undisturbed bears would this time of year, these prognosticating creatures have taken the coming climate change into consideration. Visitors have been bombarding the the Leipzig Zoo in record number to marvel at the bizarre spectacle; one hopes they will take more away from the experience than a few awkward photographs. The spotted bear, the only indigenous bear of South America, is listed as "vulnerable to extinction" by the International union for the Conservation of Nature, and supposedly has lost over thirty percent of its natural habitat to human encroachment. If people do not heed these anticipatory creatures, if they dismiss the Bear's sudden baldness as an unexplained, unsubstantiated bit of fun like so many are dismissing global warming, then the spotted bear may soon be finding the world a much more spacious place.
After:
Before:Saturday, October 24, 2009
Bizzare Czars so Far
There has been ongoing criticism, particularly among mainstream conservatives, concerning the ambiguous and continual appointment of executive ‘czars’ by the Obama administration. The term itself, ‘czar’, was coined by Ronald Reagan in 1982 when referring to his predecessor Jimmy Carter’s appointments, and Reagan himself maintained loyal officials in similar positions. The main grievance with this fairly recent czar tradition is that these specifically appointed presidential advisers, some of whom are currently unabashed communists, serve entirely outside of congressional oversight and are not appointed with Senatorial approval. As it stands, the Obama administration has a record staff of thirty two czars, but has only nominated candidates for 243 of the 385 branch positions which do require confirmation in the Senate. Though the president can delegate authority amongst inferior officers (Article II section 2), there has been an increasing discomfort with the ever-increasing appointment of these persons outside of the traditional advice and consent process.
Because Obama has already set a new record only ten months into his presidency, and he has done so with such notable appointments as Socialist International member Carol Browner and accused embezzler Nancy-Ann De Parle, a renewed wariness is very appropriate. The exact administrative authority of these czars is uncertain, undefined, overlapping, and tax-payer funded, but with unmistakable certainty the presidency is growing less and less transparent. It is important to remember that, while Obama may be going above and beyond any sense of political prudence, he is not the first president to so appropriate his executive powers. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and the Bushes all had varying numbers of czars, and while there is something to be said about the quality of appointments and the reflection on each president by the company he keeps, the fact remains that while conservatives complain, their record is no cleaner.
Obama’s approval rating, along with that of a majority Democrat congress, has fallen at record rates, and as it looks increasingly likely—albeit still a long time away from the next dual election—that conservatives will reclaim majority control, they will have to make an important decision. If the republicans do retake the White House and intend to make good on their promises of reduced government and de-regulation, they cannot simply appoint better qualified czars or appoint less of them; they must abolish the practice entirely. This is not to say the convention is in itself unconstitutional, but it is certainly abused, unnecessary, and contrary to any avowals of conservative policy. Republicans have contributed to the czarist problem as much as the Democrats, and if given the opportunity they must not forget to accompany their words with action. Conservatives complain that Obama’s appointments are out of touch with Middle America and nothing more than an expansion of power. While this is probably true, Republicans have not yet done anything to actually curtail this form of oversight. Czarist appointments must not be accepted as an irreversible aspect of the political status quo, but altogether rejected by conservatives if their political platforms are applicable and genuine.
Removing this state of czar-dom is far from implausible—after all the czars are only accountable to the president. Some maintain that the practice, if carefully regulated is a good and needed check against congressional power, but this only further shows how deeply rooted the regulatory mentality is rooted. This persistent commissioning suggests that politicians on both sides of the spectrum are too used to the idea that the czars should be there. This political malaise, this timid approach to reducing an appallingly costly and inefficient bureaucracy, stands in as victorious progressivism. Despite all of the agreeable rhetoric against it, governmental micromanagement has been allowed to persist where it should not, and it is a shame that so many politicians seem used to the idea.
Because Obama has already set a new record only ten months into his presidency, and he has done so with such notable appointments as Socialist International member Carol Browner and accused embezzler Nancy-Ann De Parle, a renewed wariness is very appropriate. The exact administrative authority of these czars is uncertain, undefined, overlapping, and tax-payer funded, but with unmistakable certainty the presidency is growing less and less transparent. It is important to remember that, while Obama may be going above and beyond any sense of political prudence, he is not the first president to so appropriate his executive powers. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and the Bushes all had varying numbers of czars, and while there is something to be said about the quality of appointments and the reflection on each president by the company he keeps, the fact remains that while conservatives complain, their record is no cleaner.
Obama’s approval rating, along with that of a majority Democrat congress, has fallen at record rates, and as it looks increasingly likely—albeit still a long time away from the next dual election—that conservatives will reclaim majority control, they will have to make an important decision. If the republicans do retake the White House and intend to make good on their promises of reduced government and de-regulation, they cannot simply appoint better qualified czars or appoint less of them; they must abolish the practice entirely. This is not to say the convention is in itself unconstitutional, but it is certainly abused, unnecessary, and contrary to any avowals of conservative policy. Republicans have contributed to the czarist problem as much as the Democrats, and if given the opportunity they must not forget to accompany their words with action. Conservatives complain that Obama’s appointments are out of touch with Middle America and nothing more than an expansion of power. While this is probably true, Republicans have not yet done anything to actually curtail this form of oversight. Czarist appointments must not be accepted as an irreversible aspect of the political status quo, but altogether rejected by conservatives if their political platforms are applicable and genuine.
Removing this state of czar-dom is far from implausible—after all the czars are only accountable to the president. Some maintain that the practice, if carefully regulated is a good and needed check against congressional power, but this only further shows how deeply rooted the regulatory mentality is rooted. This persistent commissioning suggests that politicians on both sides of the spectrum are too used to the idea that the czars should be there. This political malaise, this timid approach to reducing an appallingly costly and inefficient bureaucracy, stands in as victorious progressivism. Despite all of the agreeable rhetoric against it, governmental micromanagement has been allowed to persist where it should not, and it is a shame that so many politicians seem used to the idea.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Inside Joke or Communist Yoke?
Inside Joke or Communist Yoke
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn raised a few eyebrows last week when she, while addressing a group of high school students, identified Mother Teresa and Mao Zedong as the two people she looked to most in life and as her inspirations to challenge the status quo. Dunn went on to urge her audience accordingly, “It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what’s right for you. You don’t let external definitions define how good you are internally.” Dunn praised Mao for his intrepid takeover of China, neglecting to mention the 70 million casualties but nonetheless admiring his indomitable spirit. This shows President Obama, the first president to spurn a meeting with the Dalai Lama, in a new light—he was fighting his own war and not letting the external tradition of his predecessors influence him. When challenged on her pro-communist and potentially anarchical rhetoric, Dunn claimed to have been joking. It is indeed difficult to see the humor, but this does mean Dunn was not taking her address to impressionable high school students seriously and she may regard Mother Teresa a joke as well.
Before everyone’s sides stopped hurting, the administration again came under fire, this time with manufacturing czar Ron Bloom taking the spotlight. A video of the somber union man addressing his somber comrades at the annual Union League Club meeting in which Bloom states, “We know that the free-market is nonsense” and, “We agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun” has resurfaced in conjunction with Dunn’s recent comments. Though democrats may have had a good laugh about the peace prize, they now have a serious problem. It seems that the communications and manufacturing heads of staff have been caught red handed pitching their tents in Mao’s camp, but the Democratic congressmen and women who were cited earlier this Fall praising Fidel Castro and his regime missed the memo. So far they have all maintained some semblance of unity in their attempts to over-regulate the market; one can only hope their continued political power doesn’t come at gunpoint, as Mao and Castro’s did.
Anita Dunn maintains that calling Mao and Mother Teresa her “favorite political philosophers” was a bit of ironic humor. As a one-time stand-up comedian, this should be totally unacceptable for Dunn, who has now established that she is not only bad at humor, but also bad at communicating. Though he may not have the same pretext of mirth, Bloom’s communicative skills must also be lacking, for the Democrats clearly don’t all agree. Congresswoman Diane Watson, who lauded Castro as, “one of the brightest leaders I have ever met," displayed the same narrow scope as Dunn. Though they both rub shoulders with the major political figures of today, and have all of western political tradition to look back upon, Watson and Dunn are satisfied to idolize Mao and Castro as the best examples of initiative and administration.
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn raised a few eyebrows last week when she, while addressing a group of high school students, identified Mother Teresa and Mao Zedong as the two people she looked to most in life and as her inspirations to challenge the status quo. Dunn went on to urge her audience accordingly, “It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what’s right for you. You don’t let external definitions define how good you are internally.” Dunn praised Mao for his intrepid takeover of China, neglecting to mention the 70 million casualties but nonetheless admiring his indomitable spirit. This shows President Obama, the first president to spurn a meeting with the Dalai Lama, in a new light—he was fighting his own war and not letting the external tradition of his predecessors influence him. When challenged on her pro-communist and potentially anarchical rhetoric, Dunn claimed to have been joking. It is indeed difficult to see the humor, but this does mean Dunn was not taking her address to impressionable high school students seriously and she may regard Mother Teresa a joke as well.
Before everyone’s sides stopped hurting, the administration again came under fire, this time with manufacturing czar Ron Bloom taking the spotlight. A video of the somber union man addressing his somber comrades at the annual Union League Club meeting in which Bloom states, “We know that the free-market is nonsense” and, “We agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun” has resurfaced in conjunction with Dunn’s recent comments. Though democrats may have had a good laugh about the peace prize, they now have a serious problem. It seems that the communications and manufacturing heads of staff have been caught red handed pitching their tents in Mao’s camp, but the Democratic congressmen and women who were cited earlier this Fall praising Fidel Castro and his regime missed the memo. So far they have all maintained some semblance of unity in their attempts to over-regulate the market; one can only hope their continued political power doesn’t come at gunpoint, as Mao and Castro’s did.
Anita Dunn maintains that calling Mao and Mother Teresa her “favorite political philosophers” was a bit of ironic humor. As a one-time stand-up comedian, this should be totally unacceptable for Dunn, who has now established that she is not only bad at humor, but also bad at communicating. Though he may not have the same pretext of mirth, Bloom’s communicative skills must also be lacking, for the Democrats clearly don’t all agree. Congresswoman Diane Watson, who lauded Castro as, “one of the brightest leaders I have ever met," displayed the same narrow scope as Dunn. Though they both rub shoulders with the major political figures of today, and have all of western political tradition to look back upon, Watson and Dunn are satisfied to idolize Mao and Castro as the best examples of initiative and administration.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Communists Ahoy!
It is difficult and uncommon to find some piece of media, some exposition, which is particularly damning for one person or group. Kanye West’s drunken belligerence has not curtailed his record sales any more than David Letterman’s well-publicized affairs have brought him bad publicity. There are some few outbursts of the entertainment industry, be they songs or movies, which can defines generations, encompass cultural movements, or capture a particular mentality with inimitable effectiveness. Warner Bros.’ Mission to Moscow, released in 1942, is one such film, and one’s whose release last Tuesday is as appropriate and unsurprising now as it was sixty-five years ago. This blatant, calibrated piece of Soviet and communist propaganda was requested directly by Franklin Roosevelt and is, as a critic put it at the time, a $2 million love letter to Josef Stalin.
According to Cass Warner, film historian and granddaughter of Harry Warner, “President Roosevelt himself asked Harry and Jack Warner to assist in educating, entertaining and enlightening the American people.” Directed by Casablanca’s Michael Curtiz, the controversial film marked a turning point in Hollywood’s perception of the Soviet Union, at the time an ambiguous and distrusted ally, towards a curious and praise-worthy alternative to America. The script was loosely based on the memoirs of Joseph E. Davies, ambassador to Moscow in the late 1930s, and at one point features Davies’ character lauding Stalin; “Mr. Stalin, history will remember you as a great leader.” The film insists that Stalin recognized the Nazi threat long before the West and only allied with Hitler to buy himself and the West—his real friends, some time. He was then obligated to invade Finland, as this mission to Moscow reveals, to protect it from the Nazis (don’t tell the Finns, or for that matter mention it to the rest of Europe lest they become envious) while the film insists his subsequent purges were the conjuration of a vast Nazi conspiracy.
The Office of War Information praised the movie and its rendition of Stalin, saying it portrayed that “the leaders of both countries desire peace and both possess a blunt honesty of address and purpose”. Upon its release, Mission to Moscow came under heavy criticism, and the Warner Bros. found themselves appearing before Congress in 1950 as examples of communist infiltration in Hollywood, but after asserting screenwriter Howard Koch as the sympathizer were reprieved. Such behavior by the FDR administration is hardly surprising, but the release of Mission to Moscow is an inadvertent reminder that the situation has not changed that much. Russia is still a belligerent power ready and willing to exercise military force, as now is China, and while both countries have launched multiple operations in the past 3 years, they are being greeted mild affection and flimsy politics. Though FDR was proven wrong and Stalin identified as one of the greatest mass murderers in history, the current administration is offering Russian operatives open tours of U.S. nuclear silos. FDR’s ghost can contentedly watch a re-implementation of his economic policies with the current administration while seeing the mission to Moscow turning into a submission to Moscow.
According to Cass Warner, film historian and granddaughter of Harry Warner, “President Roosevelt himself asked Harry and Jack Warner to assist in educating, entertaining and enlightening the American people.” Directed by Casablanca’s Michael Curtiz, the controversial film marked a turning point in Hollywood’s perception of the Soviet Union, at the time an ambiguous and distrusted ally, towards a curious and praise-worthy alternative to America. The script was loosely based on the memoirs of Joseph E. Davies, ambassador to Moscow in the late 1930s, and at one point features Davies’ character lauding Stalin; “Mr. Stalin, history will remember you as a great leader.” The film insists that Stalin recognized the Nazi threat long before the West and only allied with Hitler to buy himself and the West—his real friends, some time. He was then obligated to invade Finland, as this mission to Moscow reveals, to protect it from the Nazis (don’t tell the Finns, or for that matter mention it to the rest of Europe lest they become envious) while the film insists his subsequent purges were the conjuration of a vast Nazi conspiracy.
The Office of War Information praised the movie and its rendition of Stalin, saying it portrayed that “the leaders of both countries desire peace and both possess a blunt honesty of address and purpose”. Upon its release, Mission to Moscow came under heavy criticism, and the Warner Bros. found themselves appearing before Congress in 1950 as examples of communist infiltration in Hollywood, but after asserting screenwriter Howard Koch as the sympathizer were reprieved. Such behavior by the FDR administration is hardly surprising, but the release of Mission to Moscow is an inadvertent reminder that the situation has not changed that much. Russia is still a belligerent power ready and willing to exercise military force, as now is China, and while both countries have launched multiple operations in the past 3 years, they are being greeted mild affection and flimsy politics. Though FDR was proven wrong and Stalin identified as one of the greatest mass murderers in history, the current administration is offering Russian operatives open tours of U.S. nuclear silos. FDR’s ghost can contentedly watch a re-implementation of his economic policies with the current administration while seeing the mission to Moscow turning into a submission to Moscow.
Nuclear Proliferation
It is commonly held that nuclear weapons are unduly dangerous and unnecessary, and U.S. policy is indeed an affirmation of this overly reasonable mentality. With the first war fought for nuclear proliferation near concluded in Iraq, (in so far as it was directed against nuclear arms) it is appropriate to reexamine the ideology that a general prevention of nuclear development is the best way to combat ambitiously malicious nations. North Korea and China, by far the most belligerent Asian countries, have managed to obtain or develop nuclear capabilities, and while Iran is apparently well in tow, Japan and Germany, the largest economies in Asia and Europe respectively, are tacitly chided from developing their own nuclear technologies. The problem is that U.N. and global sanctions, which come heavily with nuclear pursuits, only really affect internationally active and benevolent nations. The current method for deterring weapons development, a series of hefty embargos, makes it difficult for responsible—and often jeopardized—nations to acquire a nuclear deterrent. The situation, when reduced, shares its problems with gun control. While the good guys respect the prohibitions in a vain hope for peace and decency, the bad guys stockpile weapons.
Very few people are comfortable with the idea of nuclear promulgation, and with good reason. Nuclear combat is the most dangerous and destructive force man has thus far brought to bear. Still, because that force is here, and because it has already fallen into the wrong hands, it is very challenging to see why, from an objective standpoint, the U.S. and U.N. shouldn’t encourage nuclear programs with time-tested and responsible nations. It would be far better if no one had any at all, but with the current weapon stockpiles, there is enough atomic power to destroy the world many times over, and the global threat of any one country initiating doomsday has not really dissipated since the Cold War. A case example is the India-Pakistan situation, in which two countries with mutual enmity have peaceably existed for the last fifty years. Compare this to Israel’s military activity. Though it is not entirely certain whether or not Israel have atomic weapons, she has been involved in more direct conflicts on this side of the twentieth century than any other non-Western power.
It seems like the only way to really prevent aspiring antagonists from acquiring atomic weapons is to sustain prolonged military campaigns and a sort of semi-occupation, which is very costly for all nations involved. Furthermore there are already volatile and militaristic nations with nuclear weaponry, and at this point they can’t well be invaded. The only apparent way to check the abuses by China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, is to allow our similarly located allies—Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Ethiopia, Germany—to defensively arm themselves in kind. It isn’t a pretty picture, but nothing else seems to be working and as much as it makes one cringe to say it, nuclear deterrents may indeed be the most effective method to prevent militaristic expansion and preserve human life. People have an inherent and rightly placed discomfort with nuclear expansion, and there isn’t a precise guarantee that American allies will stay agreeable when armed. The only real assurance is that belligerent countries are aggressively arming, and as it stands they see no reason not to.
Very few people are comfortable with the idea of nuclear promulgation, and with good reason. Nuclear combat is the most dangerous and destructive force man has thus far brought to bear. Still, because that force is here, and because it has already fallen into the wrong hands, it is very challenging to see why, from an objective standpoint, the U.S. and U.N. shouldn’t encourage nuclear programs with time-tested and responsible nations. It would be far better if no one had any at all, but with the current weapon stockpiles, there is enough atomic power to destroy the world many times over, and the global threat of any one country initiating doomsday has not really dissipated since the Cold War. A case example is the India-Pakistan situation, in which two countries with mutual enmity have peaceably existed for the last fifty years. Compare this to Israel’s military activity. Though it is not entirely certain whether or not Israel have atomic weapons, she has been involved in more direct conflicts on this side of the twentieth century than any other non-Western power.
It seems like the only way to really prevent aspiring antagonists from acquiring atomic weapons is to sustain prolonged military campaigns and a sort of semi-occupation, which is very costly for all nations involved. Furthermore there are already volatile and militaristic nations with nuclear weaponry, and at this point they can’t well be invaded. The only apparent way to check the abuses by China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, is to allow our similarly located allies—Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Ethiopia, Germany—to defensively arm themselves in kind. It isn’t a pretty picture, but nothing else seems to be working and as much as it makes one cringe to say it, nuclear deterrents may indeed be the most effective method to prevent militaristic expansion and preserve human life. People have an inherent and rightly placed discomfort with nuclear expansion, and there isn’t a precise guarantee that American allies will stay agreeable when armed. The only real assurance is that belligerent countries are aggressively arming, and as it stands they see no reason not to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
