The Bigger Picture
Published on December 17th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Last week I began discussing why I believe President Obama’s decision to use another “surge” of American troops in Afghanistan was the most moral decision he could have made under the circumstances. The primary reason I cited was my belief, shared by President Obama, that America had a moral obligation to try to bring enough order and stability to Afghanistan, so that we could leave there with some hope that its citizens will be able to maintain this on their own after we are gone. But there are other reasons too.
I would ask those on the left who are critical of President Obama’s decision to send more American troops into Afghanistan instead of withdrawing them, to seriously consider what would most likely happen if America simply pulled out of the country. Do they honestly think the Taliban insurgency would collapse? I could be wrong but I doubt that very many of those who oppose Obama’s troop surge in Afghanistan have taken into account what will likely happen if the Taliban insurgency was to continue after an American pullout. So allow me to paint a picture of the two possible scenarios that could unfold if America pulled out of Afghanistan next year.
In an ideal world it is possible that an American withdrawal will leave the Taliban without a foreign enemy that it can use to motivate its fighters and or encourage more Afghanis to join its ranks. Under this scenario the Taliban wouldn’t be able to muster the resources they need to engineer a complete takeover of the country and or their Afghani opponents would be able control significant portions of the country. Possible? Yes. But likely? Hardly. That’s because, unfortunately, we don’t live in an ideal world.
I would therefore contend that the most likely effect of an American withdrawal would be an ensuing takeover of the entire country. Given their past history of providing quasi-governmental support for al Qaeda terrorists, it is also more likely than not that the Taliban will do so again, especially since al Qaeda and its Taliban allies in the Pakistan frontier regions are now engaged in a heated conflict with Pakistani government troops.
As such, another Taliban takeover of Afghanistan will likely lead to the re-establishment of a base of operation for al Qaeda from which it can plan and train for more terror attacks against innocent civilians in the US as well as other nations around the world. Spain, the UK, Kenya, Indonesia. Do any of those names ring a bell?
Furthermore, with a secure base of operations in Afghanistan, al Qaeda terrorists will also be in a position to launch attacks against its Muslim neighbors in the region such as Pakistan, Iran, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and China too for that matter. While it is indeed possible that the Taliban will try to discourage these kinds of cross border attacks by its al Qaeda allies, no evidence currently exists that suggests they are likely to do so. However, based on the Taliban’s current support for al Qaeda and its Taliban allies in Pakistan, the only hard evidence we have to date tells us we can expect more rather fewer attacks on the regimes that control countries on Afghanistan’s borders.
Why should this concern my friends on the left here in Europe and in America? After all, these countries are thousands of miles away from our homes in America and Europe so any instability in this region of the world is unlikely to ever affect us or our way of life. The problem with this line of thinking is that it fails to properly consider the risk of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of the pseudo-religious al Qaeda terrorists.
I would contend that anyone who believes that al Qaeda wouldn’t try to gain control of some of these nuclear weapons or that al Qaeda wouldn’t actually use them if it succeeded in acquiring them, is also ignoring the Taliban and al Qaeda leaders’ track record of recruiting and training suicide bombers to kill innocent mostly Muslim civilians indiscriminately. They have no regard for human life so why would they let the thought of killing a few million Muslims stand in the way of using nuclear weapons?
While some of my friends on the left may not wish to acknowledge the reality of the very real threat posed to millions of innocent people by these pseudo-religious Muslim terrorists, the vast majority of political leaders around the world agree that this threat is very real. That is also the reason why you don’t see or hear any of them criticizing Obama’s decision to devote more resources to the conflict in Afghanistan.
But there is one more reason I want to cite which gives the greatest support to my argument that Obama’s decision represents the most moral choice that he could make under the circumstances. It is also something none of my friends on the left appear to have ever considered. It is the fact that most Afghani civilians don’t want America to leave and allow their country to fall back into the clutches of the Taliban.
Unlike most of my leftist friends, I have actually discussed this issue with native Afghan men and women. They are disgusted by the inefficiency and corruption that characterizes the current government in Kabul but they have a much greater fear of what will happen to their friends and family if the Taliban ever regain power. They reminded me that they had lived under Taliban rule once before and that they didn’t know a single person back in Afghanistan who wanted to ever live that way again.
One woman also asked me to consider the fate that awaits women should the Taliban ever come to power again. Having done so, I would now ask my friends on the left to also take a moment to talk to some Afghan women about Obama’s decision before they begin trying to organize protests against it.
Next week I’ll discuss Climate Change!
Sunday, December 20, 2009
The Troop Surge in Afghanistan
The Bigger Picture
Published on December 10th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Last week I criticized President Obama and his administration for the way they mis-handled his healthcare reform, and to a lesser extent his climate change proposals, by allowing liberal Democratic Congressional leaders to take the lead in developing them.
But this week I want to applaud the President for both his handling of the evaluation process and his decisions about what America should do in Afghanistan. Mind you, I have absolutely no idea if the strategy Obama is moving to implement in Afghanistan will either succeed or fail. What I can say however, is that based on what I know about both his reasoning and the process he went through to arrive at his decision, I think he has made the best and most moral decision possible under the circumstances.
Trust me; I can already hear the angry protests from my leftist or left leaning friends here in Ireland and back in the states. “How can you dare to say that deciding to send more American soldiers into Afghanistan was in any way a moral decision?” In fact after hearing me express this opinion yesterday, one of my mates here in Dublin told me he won’t even listen to my reasons much less consider or discuss them with me.
OK so even though I will listen to, consider and discuss his opinions and or reasoning for disagreeing, he has made it very plain that he has no intention of doing likewise. Hmmmm. What’s wrong with this picture? No matter. For those of you who care to read on I will attempt to expand on and explain my reasons for believing President Obama’s decision was the most moral one he could have made given the circumstances.
To begin with I think one has to put the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan in the proper perspective. As far as I am concerned the invasion of Iraq was both wrong and immoral because it placed both American military and Iraqi civilian lives at risk even though Iraq was in no way a security threat to the United States or its neighbors. The only moral underpinning cited by the Bush administration in support of their decision to invade Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless and murderous dictator.
OK I’ll buy that. But if that is a valid reason to invade another nation half way around the world, then what about Kim Jong il in North Korea or Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe or the dictators in control of Sudan and at least half a dozen other countries? In the case of North Korea we knew for a fact that they had nuclear weapons and missiles capable of delivering them, while we had only unsubstantiated (and false) speculation regarding Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapon intentions and capabilities. That was the primary reason why both I as a Republican and Barack Obama as a Democrat opposed the decision to Invade Iraq from the very start of the Iraq War.
Since a substantial majority of Americans have now come to the same conclusion about the Iraq War, from a purely political standpoint, the easiest decision for Obama to make regarding Iraq would be to pull out completely and simply blame George Bush for whatever happens after America has completed its withdrawal from Iraq. But as I wrote in several previous columns over the last 3 years, although I was adamantly opposed to the Iraq war, I also believed just as strongly that it would be immoral to pull out of Iraq without first making an attempt to stabablise the country and reduce the violence there.
Like it or not, we can’t go back to the way things were in Iraq prior to the American invasion or change the foolish decision President Bush made to invade it. President Obama also rightly recognized that although the Bush administration had been wrong to invade Iraq and had made a bloody mess of the country in the process, America still had a moral obligation to try to clean it the mess we made before we withdrew.
Afghanistan is not Iraq however and the circumstances that precipitated our decision to invade that country were markedly different as well. Afghanistan and its Taliban regime were a security threat to the United States and other nations because they were providing safe havens for al Qaeda terrorists to train those bent on killing innocent civilians in the United States and other countries. The Taliban were and still are just as ruthless and murderous as Saddam Hussein in terms of how they treat Afghani civilians but that was not the reason why America invaded Afghanistan, nor should it have been.
How quickly we forget. Both Barack Obama and the leaders of many other countries around the world fully supported the decision to invade Afghanistan because it was a safe harbor for al Qaeda terrorists and their leader, Osama bin Laden. Many Islamic nations also supported the decision to overthrow the Taliban regime as well.
Unfortunately, following the successful overthrow of the Taliban regime, President Bush turned his attention away from Afghanistan to Iraq instead of devoting the resources needed to rebuild that country’s infrastructure and institutions, thus bringing some semblance of order and stability to Afghanistan and its war weary people.
Once again however, President Obama can’t undo the mistakes made by his predecessor which opened the door that allowed the Taliban to rebuild their armed strength in Afghanistan. Unlike President Bush, Barack Obama and most other Americans have no illusions about “winning” the war in Afghanistan. But we do have a moral obligation to try to bring enough order and stability to the country that we can leave there with some hope that the citizens of Afghanistan will be able to maintain this on their own after we are gone.
This is why I believe President Obama’s decision to use another “surge” of American troops in Afghanistan was the most moral decision he could have made under the circumstances. But there are other reasons too……..
Published on December 10th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Last week I criticized President Obama and his administration for the way they mis-handled his healthcare reform, and to a lesser extent his climate change proposals, by allowing liberal Democratic Congressional leaders to take the lead in developing them.
But this week I want to applaud the President for both his handling of the evaluation process and his decisions about what America should do in Afghanistan. Mind you, I have absolutely no idea if the strategy Obama is moving to implement in Afghanistan will either succeed or fail. What I can say however, is that based on what I know about both his reasoning and the process he went through to arrive at his decision, I think he has made the best and most moral decision possible under the circumstances.
Trust me; I can already hear the angry protests from my leftist or left leaning friends here in Ireland and back in the states. “How can you dare to say that deciding to send more American soldiers into Afghanistan was in any way a moral decision?” In fact after hearing me express this opinion yesterday, one of my mates here in Dublin told me he won’t even listen to my reasons much less consider or discuss them with me.
OK so even though I will listen to, consider and discuss his opinions and or reasoning for disagreeing, he has made it very plain that he has no intention of doing likewise. Hmmmm. What’s wrong with this picture? No matter. For those of you who care to read on I will attempt to expand on and explain my reasons for believing President Obama’s decision was the most moral one he could have made given the circumstances.
To begin with I think one has to put the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan in the proper perspective. As far as I am concerned the invasion of Iraq was both wrong and immoral because it placed both American military and Iraqi civilian lives at risk even though Iraq was in no way a security threat to the United States or its neighbors. The only moral underpinning cited by the Bush administration in support of their decision to invade Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless and murderous dictator.
OK I’ll buy that. But if that is a valid reason to invade another nation half way around the world, then what about Kim Jong il in North Korea or Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe or the dictators in control of Sudan and at least half a dozen other countries? In the case of North Korea we knew for a fact that they had nuclear weapons and missiles capable of delivering them, while we had only unsubstantiated (and false) speculation regarding Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapon intentions and capabilities. That was the primary reason why both I as a Republican and Barack Obama as a Democrat opposed the decision to Invade Iraq from the very start of the Iraq War.
Since a substantial majority of Americans have now come to the same conclusion about the Iraq War, from a purely political standpoint, the easiest decision for Obama to make regarding Iraq would be to pull out completely and simply blame George Bush for whatever happens after America has completed its withdrawal from Iraq. But as I wrote in several previous columns over the last 3 years, although I was adamantly opposed to the Iraq war, I also believed just as strongly that it would be immoral to pull out of Iraq without first making an attempt to stabablise the country and reduce the violence there.
Like it or not, we can’t go back to the way things were in Iraq prior to the American invasion or change the foolish decision President Bush made to invade it. President Obama also rightly recognized that although the Bush administration had been wrong to invade Iraq and had made a bloody mess of the country in the process, America still had a moral obligation to try to clean it the mess we made before we withdrew.
Afghanistan is not Iraq however and the circumstances that precipitated our decision to invade that country were markedly different as well. Afghanistan and its Taliban regime were a security threat to the United States and other nations because they were providing safe havens for al Qaeda terrorists to train those bent on killing innocent civilians in the United States and other countries. The Taliban were and still are just as ruthless and murderous as Saddam Hussein in terms of how they treat Afghani civilians but that was not the reason why America invaded Afghanistan, nor should it have been.
How quickly we forget. Both Barack Obama and the leaders of many other countries around the world fully supported the decision to invade Afghanistan because it was a safe harbor for al Qaeda terrorists and their leader, Osama bin Laden. Many Islamic nations also supported the decision to overthrow the Taliban regime as well.
Unfortunately, following the successful overthrow of the Taliban regime, President Bush turned his attention away from Afghanistan to Iraq instead of devoting the resources needed to rebuild that country’s infrastructure and institutions, thus bringing some semblance of order and stability to Afghanistan and its war weary people.
Once again however, President Obama can’t undo the mistakes made by his predecessor which opened the door that allowed the Taliban to rebuild their armed strength in Afghanistan. Unlike President Bush, Barack Obama and most other Americans have no illusions about “winning” the war in Afghanistan. But we do have a moral obligation to try to bring enough order and stability to the country that we can leave there with some hope that the citizens of Afghanistan will be able to maintain this on their own after we are gone.
This is why I believe President Obama’s decision to use another “surge” of American troops in Afghanistan was the most moral decision he could have made under the circumstances. But there are other reasons too……..
What the President and Democrats SHOULD have learned from Mid-Term Elections
The Bigger Picture
Published on December 3rd in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In last week’s column I faulted President Obama for his handling of two of his three most important domestic policy issues; healthcare reform and climate change legislation. I believe the President blundered by allowing Congressional Democrats to take the lead in developing these bills, thus providing his Republicans opponents with plenty of ammunition for them to use in an attempt to torpedo these initiatives.
While I am a strong supporter of the President and his domestic policy agenda, unlike many of Obama’s other supporters, I also won’t hesitate to take President Obama to task when I believe he has erred. But before I expand on my critique of how the President mishandled his healthcare and climate change proposals, lets put them into context by first examining how he succeeded in achieving his number one legislative priority shortly after he took office; arresting the free fall in the American economy.
President Obama correctly perceived that stopping the economic hemorrhaging caused by the financial wounds various segments of the economy had suffered was his most important job as our nation’s 44th President. To that end Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, took the lead in crafting an economic stimulus package rather than leaving it to Democratic leaders in the US House of Representatives and Senate.
The Obama administration proposed a combination of increased federal spending, which was criticized by Democratic liberals as being too small and by Republican conservatives for being wasteful, and tax cuts that were criticized by liberals as unnecessary and by conservatives for being less than what was needed. But at this early stage in America’s economic recovery process it appears that President Obama and his economic advisors got the economic stimulus package that they proposed just right.
I should also note this isn’t just my opinion either. At the same time US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was being raked over the coals by a few Democrats as well as the Republican members of the Joint Economic Committee at a hearing on Capitol Hill, a very different consensus of opinion about Obama’s stimulus package was emerging from a group of respected non-partisan economic analysts.
Before the hearing a Democratic representative unhappy about America’s high unemployment rate was asked by a TV interviwer if Geithner should be allowed to remain as Treasury Secretary and responded with an emphatic “No!” Then during the Joint Economic Committee meeting the next day, one House Republican told Geithner he had “failed” while another Republican on the committee said President Obama should have never given Geithner the Treasury job to begin with.
Maybe I’m crazy to think this way, but I just have a lot more faith in what a group of knowledgeable economists have to say about the Obama administration’s economic recovery legislation than I do in the opinions of politicians from either political party about the success or failure of these policies.
In response to Congressional complaints that the huge economic stimulus package wasn’t working, Nigel Gault , the chief economist at IHS Global Insight was quoted as saying; “I don’t think it’s right to look at it by saying, ‘Well, the economy is still doing extremely badly, therefore the stimulus didn’t work.’ I’m afraid the answer is, yes, we did badly but we would have done even worse without the stimulus.”
Mr. Gault’s opinion is shared by Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moodys Economy.com, who was quoted as stating that; “In my view, without the stimulus, G.D.P. would still be negative and unemployment would be firmly over 11 percent. And there are a little over 1.1 million more jobs out there as of October than would have been out there without the stimulus.”
But in contrast to the Obama administration’s development of the apparently successful economic stimulus legislation, when it came to healthcare reforms and climate change legislation, the President let Congressional Democrats develop these proposals on their own with very little input or guidance from the White House. As a consequence, 5 different House and Senate committees drafted their own separate versions of healthcare reform proposals that addressed the desires of their generally more liberal constituents.
The end result was an incoherent jumble of healthcare reform proposals that gave anti-Obama Republican conservatives all the ammunition they needed to put conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans on the defensive. What were they thinking? That they could still win enough support from these legislators to pass these bills without putting them at risk of losing their upcoming swing state or district re-election battles in 2010? Obviously these more liberal Democratic Congressional leaders weren’t thinking!
Crafting healthcare legislation that addresses the concerns of liberal Democratic constituencies is not a strategy that will work unless Democrats have an overwhelming majority in both Houses of Congress. Well guess what? They don’t and their chances of achieving such a majority in 2010 have never been dimmer. What the more liberal Democrats don’t seem to understand is that getting healthcare reforms passed in the Senate is dependent on selling the idea to the 85% of Americans who currently have healthcare insurance, not the 45 million Americans who don’t.
One of the few liberal Democrats who understood this kind of political calculus was the now deceased “Lion of the Senate”, Ted Kennedy. I could be wrong, but I don’t think Ted would have let any bills out of committee until he had developed a package of reforms that he could persuade a smattering of conservative Democratic and moderate Republican legislators to vote for. The bill would have been criticized by liberals for not going far enough to address the needs of the uninsured and by anti-Obama conservatives for going too far, but it would have passed and become law.
Ted Kennedy’s stance on reform legislation was to get the most significant reforms in place then come back in a couple of years and make it better. Thankfully, President Obama finally appears to be ready to adopt this approach to healthcare reform. Now what does Obama do about Afghanistan?
Published on December 3rd in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In last week’s column I faulted President Obama for his handling of two of his three most important domestic policy issues; healthcare reform and climate change legislation. I believe the President blundered by allowing Congressional Democrats to take the lead in developing these bills, thus providing his Republicans opponents with plenty of ammunition for them to use in an attempt to torpedo these initiatives.
While I am a strong supporter of the President and his domestic policy agenda, unlike many of Obama’s other supporters, I also won’t hesitate to take President Obama to task when I believe he has erred. But before I expand on my critique of how the President mishandled his healthcare and climate change proposals, lets put them into context by first examining how he succeeded in achieving his number one legislative priority shortly after he took office; arresting the free fall in the American economy.
President Obama correctly perceived that stopping the economic hemorrhaging caused by the financial wounds various segments of the economy had suffered was his most important job as our nation’s 44th President. To that end Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, took the lead in crafting an economic stimulus package rather than leaving it to Democratic leaders in the US House of Representatives and Senate.
The Obama administration proposed a combination of increased federal spending, which was criticized by Democratic liberals as being too small and by Republican conservatives for being wasteful, and tax cuts that were criticized by liberals as unnecessary and by conservatives for being less than what was needed. But at this early stage in America’s economic recovery process it appears that President Obama and his economic advisors got the economic stimulus package that they proposed just right.
I should also note this isn’t just my opinion either. At the same time US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was being raked over the coals by a few Democrats as well as the Republican members of the Joint Economic Committee at a hearing on Capitol Hill, a very different consensus of opinion about Obama’s stimulus package was emerging from a group of respected non-partisan economic analysts.
Before the hearing a Democratic representative unhappy about America’s high unemployment rate was asked by a TV interviwer if Geithner should be allowed to remain as Treasury Secretary and responded with an emphatic “No!” Then during the Joint Economic Committee meeting the next day, one House Republican told Geithner he had “failed” while another Republican on the committee said President Obama should have never given Geithner the Treasury job to begin with.
Maybe I’m crazy to think this way, but I just have a lot more faith in what a group of knowledgeable economists have to say about the Obama administration’s economic recovery legislation than I do in the opinions of politicians from either political party about the success or failure of these policies.
In response to Congressional complaints that the huge economic stimulus package wasn’t working, Nigel Gault , the chief economist at IHS Global Insight was quoted as saying; “I don’t think it’s right to look at it by saying, ‘Well, the economy is still doing extremely badly, therefore the stimulus didn’t work.’ I’m afraid the answer is, yes, we did badly but we would have done even worse without the stimulus.”
Mr. Gault’s opinion is shared by Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moodys Economy.com, who was quoted as stating that; “In my view, without the stimulus, G.D.P. would still be negative and unemployment would be firmly over 11 percent. And there are a little over 1.1 million more jobs out there as of October than would have been out there without the stimulus.”
But in contrast to the Obama administration’s development of the apparently successful economic stimulus legislation, when it came to healthcare reforms and climate change legislation, the President let Congressional Democrats develop these proposals on their own with very little input or guidance from the White House. As a consequence, 5 different House and Senate committees drafted their own separate versions of healthcare reform proposals that addressed the desires of their generally more liberal constituents.
The end result was an incoherent jumble of healthcare reform proposals that gave anti-Obama Republican conservatives all the ammunition they needed to put conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans on the defensive. What were they thinking? That they could still win enough support from these legislators to pass these bills without putting them at risk of losing their upcoming swing state or district re-election battles in 2010? Obviously these more liberal Democratic Congressional leaders weren’t thinking!
Crafting healthcare legislation that addresses the concerns of liberal Democratic constituencies is not a strategy that will work unless Democrats have an overwhelming majority in both Houses of Congress. Well guess what? They don’t and their chances of achieving such a majority in 2010 have never been dimmer. What the more liberal Democrats don’t seem to understand is that getting healthcare reforms passed in the Senate is dependent on selling the idea to the 85% of Americans who currently have healthcare insurance, not the 45 million Americans who don’t.
One of the few liberal Democrats who understood this kind of political calculus was the now deceased “Lion of the Senate”, Ted Kennedy. I could be wrong, but I don’t think Ted would have let any bills out of committee until he had developed a package of reforms that he could persuade a smattering of conservative Democratic and moderate Republican legislators to vote for. The bill would have been criticized by liberals for not going far enough to address the needs of the uninsured and by anti-Obama conservatives for going too far, but it would have passed and become law.
Ted Kennedy’s stance on reform legislation was to get the most significant reforms in place then come back in a couple of years and make it better. Thankfully, President Obama finally appears to be ready to adopt this approach to healthcare reform. Now what does Obama do about Afghanistan?
What President Obama MAY have learned
The Bigger Picture
Published on November 26th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Happy Thanksgiving Day (in America)! Last week I noted that the number lesson Republicans could learn from this month’s mid-term elections was that the surest path to electoral victory was to run in favor of things like economic development rather than against proposals such as President Obama’s reforms of America’s healthcare and energy policies.
Avoiding debates about controversial social issues like abortion or gay marriage and instead focusing on job creation was a strategy that worked for Republican gubernatorial candidates’ Bob McDonnell in Virginia and Chris Christie in New Jersey. On the other hand, national Republican’s support for Doug Hoffman’s attacks on President Obama’s policies and moderate Republican candidates who don’t agree with the Party’s social conservatives, led to the loss of a staunchly Republican New York legislative seat in Congress.
Fortunately for the Democratic Party’s future election prospects, many Republicans, especially those who are members of the social conservative class, have failed, or simply refuse, to see the bigger picture (sorry, no pun intended). While there are some Republicans at both the national and state levels who are very concerned about the Party’s future prospects, nary a one will discuss their concerns on the record for fear of invoking the wrath of right wing TV and radio pundits like Sean Hannity.
The Republican Party also continues to suffer from the lack of any real national leader other than Sarah Palin. Talk show demagogues like Rush Limbaugh love Sarah Palin and continue to extol her virtues as a potential successor to President Obama in 2012. Other Republicans gripe about her but dare not do so publicly for fear of provoking outrage among Palin’s slavishly devoted social conservative followers.
While McDonnell and Christie have both announced that they plan to have centrist administrations, social conservatives are revving up their attacks on more moderate Republicans like Florida Governor Charlie Crist. But if social conservatives do indeed win these intra-party battles with more moderate Republican politicians, they will also lose most of the general election wars their standard bearers will also have to wage.
That being the case, should Democrats really be concerned about their electoral chances in 2010 and beyond? I would suggest that Democrats shouldn’t take too much solace from the civil war Republican social conservatives are waging against their party’s moderates. Doing so only allows President Obama and his fellow Democrats to continue to avoid dealing with their own shortcomings rather than coming to terms with them.
Pinning one’s chances for success on the failures of your competition is hardly what one would call a “winning” strategy in business, politics or any other field of endeavor. A winning strategy takes advantage of mistakes made by one’s opponent, but it doesn’t depend on them slipping up. President Obama and the Democratic Party need to recognize that while the Republican Party’s internecine war may leave some of their candidates bloodied and weakened going into a general election, they could still win it.
I think it is foolish for Republicans to cite the results of 1994’s general election to herald this year’s mid-term election victories as predictive of a Republican drubbing of Democrats in 2010, 2 years into another new Democratic President’s first term. What Republicans fail to acknowledge is that much of their success in 1994 was due to the fact that an unprecedented number of Democratic lawmakers chose not to run for re-election that year. Open seats are always the ones most likely to be won by the other party, yet less than 10 Democrats have announced plans to retire in 2010 versus almost 50 in 1994.
But it is just as reckless for Democrats to use past history to spin the results of the Virginia and New Jersey mid-term elections as being indicative of nothing more than these state’s voters’ contrariness and low voter turnout. Granted, voter turnout was much lower and these states do have a history of electing governors from whichever party doesn’t hold the White House. However accurate these historical analogies may appear to be though, they still can’t obscure the fact that the soft underbelly of the Democratic Party was also exposed in this month’s elections.
Although only a handful of Democratic seats will be up for grabs in 2010 due to legislator retirements, there will still be another 50 Democrats running for re-election in historically Republican leaning Congressional districts. These moderate and conservative Democrats originally won those seats thanks to support from disenchanted Independent voters during the waning years of the Bush administration. As a consequence these Democratic officeholders are particularly concerned about the sentiments of Independent voters in the US and their respective districts. They should be!
Exit polling in both Virginia and New Jersey showed the same worrisome trends for Democrats among those Independent voters who strongly supported Democratic candidates in the 2006 and 2008 general elections. In both Virginia and New Jersey Independents voted for the Republican candidates by almost a 2 to 1 margin and for those who were most concerned about economic issues, the margin was almost 3 to 1. So what explains such a remarkable shift by Independent voters?
While the general public and many Independent voters still have favorable opinions about President Obama, the results of the mid-term elections signal a growing concern, particularly among Independent voters about the mounting federal budget deficit. To their political credit, Republicans have seized on these concerns, using them to try to stymie Congressional Democrats healthcare and climate change legislation by telling voters these bills will push America even deeper into debt.
While Republican claims that President Obama’s policies are pushing up the nation’s budget deficit shamelessly ignore their own budget busting actions while they held the reins of power, President Obama is at least partially to blame for giving Republicans some of the ammunition they are now using against him. I strongly believe President Obama should have never allowed Democratic Congressional leaders to take the lead in crafting such landmark healthcare reform and climate change legislation. I’ll explain why next week.
Published on November 26th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Happy Thanksgiving Day (in America)! Last week I noted that the number lesson Republicans could learn from this month’s mid-term elections was that the surest path to electoral victory was to run in favor of things like economic development rather than against proposals such as President Obama’s reforms of America’s healthcare and energy policies.
Avoiding debates about controversial social issues like abortion or gay marriage and instead focusing on job creation was a strategy that worked for Republican gubernatorial candidates’ Bob McDonnell in Virginia and Chris Christie in New Jersey. On the other hand, national Republican’s support for Doug Hoffman’s attacks on President Obama’s policies and moderate Republican candidates who don’t agree with the Party’s social conservatives, led to the loss of a staunchly Republican New York legislative seat in Congress.
Fortunately for the Democratic Party’s future election prospects, many Republicans, especially those who are members of the social conservative class, have failed, or simply refuse, to see the bigger picture (sorry, no pun intended). While there are some Republicans at both the national and state levels who are very concerned about the Party’s future prospects, nary a one will discuss their concerns on the record for fear of invoking the wrath of right wing TV and radio pundits like Sean Hannity.
The Republican Party also continues to suffer from the lack of any real national leader other than Sarah Palin. Talk show demagogues like Rush Limbaugh love Sarah Palin and continue to extol her virtues as a potential successor to President Obama in 2012. Other Republicans gripe about her but dare not do so publicly for fear of provoking outrage among Palin’s slavishly devoted social conservative followers.
While McDonnell and Christie have both announced that they plan to have centrist administrations, social conservatives are revving up their attacks on more moderate Republicans like Florida Governor Charlie Crist. But if social conservatives do indeed win these intra-party battles with more moderate Republican politicians, they will also lose most of the general election wars their standard bearers will also have to wage.
That being the case, should Democrats really be concerned about their electoral chances in 2010 and beyond? I would suggest that Democrats shouldn’t take too much solace from the civil war Republican social conservatives are waging against their party’s moderates. Doing so only allows President Obama and his fellow Democrats to continue to avoid dealing with their own shortcomings rather than coming to terms with them.
Pinning one’s chances for success on the failures of your competition is hardly what one would call a “winning” strategy in business, politics or any other field of endeavor. A winning strategy takes advantage of mistakes made by one’s opponent, but it doesn’t depend on them slipping up. President Obama and the Democratic Party need to recognize that while the Republican Party’s internecine war may leave some of their candidates bloodied and weakened going into a general election, they could still win it.
I think it is foolish for Republicans to cite the results of 1994’s general election to herald this year’s mid-term election victories as predictive of a Republican drubbing of Democrats in 2010, 2 years into another new Democratic President’s first term. What Republicans fail to acknowledge is that much of their success in 1994 was due to the fact that an unprecedented number of Democratic lawmakers chose not to run for re-election that year. Open seats are always the ones most likely to be won by the other party, yet less than 10 Democrats have announced plans to retire in 2010 versus almost 50 in 1994.
But it is just as reckless for Democrats to use past history to spin the results of the Virginia and New Jersey mid-term elections as being indicative of nothing more than these state’s voters’ contrariness and low voter turnout. Granted, voter turnout was much lower and these states do have a history of electing governors from whichever party doesn’t hold the White House. However accurate these historical analogies may appear to be though, they still can’t obscure the fact that the soft underbelly of the Democratic Party was also exposed in this month’s elections.
Although only a handful of Democratic seats will be up for grabs in 2010 due to legislator retirements, there will still be another 50 Democrats running for re-election in historically Republican leaning Congressional districts. These moderate and conservative Democrats originally won those seats thanks to support from disenchanted Independent voters during the waning years of the Bush administration. As a consequence these Democratic officeholders are particularly concerned about the sentiments of Independent voters in the US and their respective districts. They should be!
Exit polling in both Virginia and New Jersey showed the same worrisome trends for Democrats among those Independent voters who strongly supported Democratic candidates in the 2006 and 2008 general elections. In both Virginia and New Jersey Independents voted for the Republican candidates by almost a 2 to 1 margin and for those who were most concerned about economic issues, the margin was almost 3 to 1. So what explains such a remarkable shift by Independent voters?
While the general public and many Independent voters still have favorable opinions about President Obama, the results of the mid-term elections signal a growing concern, particularly among Independent voters about the mounting federal budget deficit. To their political credit, Republicans have seized on these concerns, using them to try to stymie Congressional Democrats healthcare and climate change legislation by telling voters these bills will push America even deeper into debt.
While Republican claims that President Obama’s policies are pushing up the nation’s budget deficit shamelessly ignore their own budget busting actions while they held the reins of power, President Obama is at least partially to blame for giving Republicans some of the ammunition they are now using against him. I strongly believe President Obama should have never allowed Democratic Congressional leaders to take the lead in crafting such landmark healthcare reform and climate change legislation. I’ll explain why next week.
What Republicans COULD learn from Mid-Term Elections
The Bigger Picture
Published on November 19th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
If this month’s mid-term elections in the United States were not a barometer of Americans satisfaction or dis-satisfaction with President Obama’s performance in office this past year, are there any insights into American voter sentiments that members of either the Republican or Democratic political parties can draw from them?
While I could be wrong, I think both parties could learn some valuable lessons from the mid-term election results that they could apply when they are developing strategies for next year’s national and state elections.
I will start with the Republican Party which emerged victorious in the only two state governor races that were contested this month. Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele loudly crowed to the news media that the mid-term elections heralded a “Republican renaissance” which was a bit over the top in my estimation. However overblown Steele’s analysis may have been, this was to be expected since any electoral success by Republicans in the mid-term elections was bound to be wildly celebrated by Republicans given the party’s notable lack of success in the past two national elections.
But hyperbole aside, the Republican candidates for governor in New Jersey and Virginia did execute successful campaign strategies that led to a Republican takeover of two governors’ offices currently occupied by Democrats. But the strategies both of these Republicans used to win those elections are ones that the social conservatives who now dominate the Republican Party would be wise to take note of.
Both Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie avoided any discussions or debates about their positions on the social issues that Republican social conservatives hold so dear. Both men instead focused on the need for jobs and economic development coupled with tax reductions as they appealed to moderate and independent voter’s concerns about these “pocketbook” issues. As a result they were able to win a plurality of their states’ independent voters similar in size to the one President Obama and many other Democrats got from these same voters in last years national elections.
The other important thing Republicans need to consider is the fact that a much lower voter turnout in both of those elections also contributed to their candidates’ success. The younger and minority voters who typically favor Democrats were largely absent from the polls on election day which in turn allowed the Republican Party’s older and predominately white voters to cast a larger percentage of the election’s votes than the percentages attributed to Republicans in a national election year. So the bottom line is that the Republicans who won these state elections two weeks ago succeeded because they ran in favor of something, like jobs and economic development, instead of against everything President Obama and national Democrats propose such as healthcare reform.
There were also two special elections in New York and California to fill vacant seats in the US House of Representatives that Republicans have conveniently tried to ignore. That’s because while they were winning two governors elections they were also losing these two elections for the national Congress. While the California contest was in a heavily Democratic district that the Democratic candidate John Garamendi was expected to win, such was not the case in New York’s 23rd Congressional district.
In fact this largely rural New York district had never before elected a Democrat to Congress and the Republican Party had held this seat for more than 125 years. This was one of the most Republican House districts in the country and the last time any other party held this seat it was the Whig party back in the 1850’s.
The District’s Republican Party chiefs selected a moderate Republican, New York State Assemblywoman Dierdre Scozzafava, to run against an attorney and US military veteran, Democrat Bill Owens, to fill this vacant US House position. However, judging by the comments of potential 2012 Republican Presidential candidates Tim Pawlenty and Sarah Palin you would have thought Ms Scozzafava was a die hard liberal Democrat.
When Republican social conservatives objected to the choice of Ms Scozzafava because of her support for abortion rights and gay marriage, this special election quickly morphed into a national cause celeb for right wing media figures like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. They urged their followers to instead support the Conservative Party candidate Bob Hoffman and right wing activists from around the country promptly descended on New York to campaign for Mr. Hoffman. Conservative activists did so because viewed the election as both a referendum on President Barack Obama and a fight over the soul of the Republican Party and or a victory for grassroots conservatism
Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty saw which way the wind was blowing, so to curry favor with conservative activists, they promptly turned their backs on Ms Scozzafava and endorsed Mr. Hoffman too. The ensuing “civil war” that then erupted between Republican moderates and social conservatives finally led Ms Scozzafava to withdraw from the race a week before the election and endorse her Democratic opponent instead.
Police were later summoned to several polling places on Election Day to deal with overzealous electioneering by Hoffman’s social conservative supporters. Hoffman, who was leading in pre-election polls, responded to his defeat by accusing Democrats of trying to steal the election and slashing the tires of a campaign volunteer. The local police chief later said that there had been no tire slashing and that the campaign worker simply “drove over a bottle and cut his tire”.
Yet, in spite of their unexpected loss of a Republican Congressional seat, Republican activists nonetheless claim the election in New York was a “victory for grassroots conservatism”. I’m sorry but I just don’t see how Hoffman losing a Republican seat by running as an anti-Obama social conservative while McDonnell and Christie are winning elections by avoiding this strategy is a “victory for grassroots conservatism”. I must say it never ceases to amaze me that so many Republicans still believe they must appease the Party’s social conservatives in order to get elected. This tactic worked real well for Hoffman didn’t it?
Published on November 19th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
If this month’s mid-term elections in the United States were not a barometer of Americans satisfaction or dis-satisfaction with President Obama’s performance in office this past year, are there any insights into American voter sentiments that members of either the Republican or Democratic political parties can draw from them?
While I could be wrong, I think both parties could learn some valuable lessons from the mid-term election results that they could apply when they are developing strategies for next year’s national and state elections.
I will start with the Republican Party which emerged victorious in the only two state governor races that were contested this month. Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele loudly crowed to the news media that the mid-term elections heralded a “Republican renaissance” which was a bit over the top in my estimation. However overblown Steele’s analysis may have been, this was to be expected since any electoral success by Republicans in the mid-term elections was bound to be wildly celebrated by Republicans given the party’s notable lack of success in the past two national elections.
But hyperbole aside, the Republican candidates for governor in New Jersey and Virginia did execute successful campaign strategies that led to a Republican takeover of two governors’ offices currently occupied by Democrats. But the strategies both of these Republicans used to win those elections are ones that the social conservatives who now dominate the Republican Party would be wise to take note of.
Both Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie avoided any discussions or debates about their positions on the social issues that Republican social conservatives hold so dear. Both men instead focused on the need for jobs and economic development coupled with tax reductions as they appealed to moderate and independent voter’s concerns about these “pocketbook” issues. As a result they were able to win a plurality of their states’ independent voters similar in size to the one President Obama and many other Democrats got from these same voters in last years national elections.
The other important thing Republicans need to consider is the fact that a much lower voter turnout in both of those elections also contributed to their candidates’ success. The younger and minority voters who typically favor Democrats were largely absent from the polls on election day which in turn allowed the Republican Party’s older and predominately white voters to cast a larger percentage of the election’s votes than the percentages attributed to Republicans in a national election year. So the bottom line is that the Republicans who won these state elections two weeks ago succeeded because they ran in favor of something, like jobs and economic development, instead of against everything President Obama and national Democrats propose such as healthcare reform.
There were also two special elections in New York and California to fill vacant seats in the US House of Representatives that Republicans have conveniently tried to ignore. That’s because while they were winning two governors elections they were also losing these two elections for the national Congress. While the California contest was in a heavily Democratic district that the Democratic candidate John Garamendi was expected to win, such was not the case in New York’s 23rd Congressional district.
In fact this largely rural New York district had never before elected a Democrat to Congress and the Republican Party had held this seat for more than 125 years. This was one of the most Republican House districts in the country and the last time any other party held this seat it was the Whig party back in the 1850’s.
The District’s Republican Party chiefs selected a moderate Republican, New York State Assemblywoman Dierdre Scozzafava, to run against an attorney and US military veteran, Democrat Bill Owens, to fill this vacant US House position. However, judging by the comments of potential 2012 Republican Presidential candidates Tim Pawlenty and Sarah Palin you would have thought Ms Scozzafava was a die hard liberal Democrat.
When Republican social conservatives objected to the choice of Ms Scozzafava because of her support for abortion rights and gay marriage, this special election quickly morphed into a national cause celeb for right wing media figures like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. They urged their followers to instead support the Conservative Party candidate Bob Hoffman and right wing activists from around the country promptly descended on New York to campaign for Mr. Hoffman. Conservative activists did so because viewed the election as both a referendum on President Barack Obama and a fight over the soul of the Republican Party and or a victory for grassroots conservatism
Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty saw which way the wind was blowing, so to curry favor with conservative activists, they promptly turned their backs on Ms Scozzafava and endorsed Mr. Hoffman too. The ensuing “civil war” that then erupted between Republican moderates and social conservatives finally led Ms Scozzafava to withdraw from the race a week before the election and endorse her Democratic opponent instead.
Police were later summoned to several polling places on Election Day to deal with overzealous electioneering by Hoffman’s social conservative supporters. Hoffman, who was leading in pre-election polls, responded to his defeat by accusing Democrats of trying to steal the election and slashing the tires of a campaign volunteer. The local police chief later said that there had been no tire slashing and that the campaign worker simply “drove over a bottle and cut his tire”.
Yet, in spite of their unexpected loss of a Republican Congressional seat, Republican activists nonetheless claim the election in New York was a “victory for grassroots conservatism”. I’m sorry but I just don’t see how Hoffman losing a Republican seat by running as an anti-Obama social conservative while McDonnell and Christie are winning elections by avoiding this strategy is a “victory for grassroots conservatism”. I must say it never ceases to amaze me that so many Republicans still believe they must appease the Party’s social conservatives in order to get elected. This tactic worked real well for Hoffman didn’t it?
The US Mid-Term Election Results
The Bigger Picture
Published on November 12th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In this week’s column I will try to analyze the results of America’s off-year elections. Incidentally, the decision to award the Nobel Prize to Obama had absolutely no effect on these elections and President Obama’s performance during his first year in office had virtually no impact either.
The November 2009 general elections are called off-year elections because odd numbered year elections always follow the even numbered year elections for federal and national offices such as Congress and the Presidentcy. They are also mid-term elections for members of the US House of Representatives who must run for Congress every two years. As such, off-year and mid-term elections tend to be exclusively focused on local, city and state political concerns rather than national politics.
Because voter turnout tends to be much greater when national elections are held and because governments save money by combing local and state elections with federal elections, with few exceptions, most states and cities actually conduct their respective political contests in conjunction with the even numbered year’s federal election cycle. So even though most major cities like New York City, Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Houston and San Francisco have mayoral and city council elections in off-years, the only states that do so are Virginia, New Jersey, Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky.
Given the lack of national political issues involved in last week’s elections, I must confess that I find it amazing as well as somewhat humorous that so much national and international media attention was focused on the state elections for governor in Virginia and New Jersey. Last time I checked no state governor or city mayor has ever taken part in the national domestic and foreign policy decisions made in Washington DC. So why on earth would anyone in the news media think the results from a couple of state and local elections are an indication about how voters feel about Congress and or President Obama’s performance thus far? Well, even though I don’t see much national impact from them, for what it’s worth here is my take on the results of last week’s American elections.
In Virginia, I suspect there was a least one Democrat, Terry McAuliffe, who was secretly smiling about Republican Bob McDonnell’s thumping of Democrat Craig Deeds in the race for governor. However, Terry McAuliffe wasn’t smiling because the man who defeated him in the Democratic primary, Craig Deeds, had lost the general election but rather because he had warned Deeds and Virginia Democrats that they would lose the governor’s race unless they made jobs and economic development the focus of their campaign. Craig Deeds preferred to focus on a Masters thesis McDonnell had written twenty years ago in which he expressed rather extreme anti-gay and anti-feminist sentiments. Instead, it was the Republican candidate, McDonnell who followed this script and the result was he won the governor’s race going away by a double digit margin.
By focusing on “old” political views that McDonnell said he no longer held, Deeds actually succeeded in reinforcing McDonnell’s support among older white social conservative voters who overwhelmingly supported his candidacy. On the other hand, the suburban white female voters Deeds was trying to alarm with his focus on these “old” social conservative views, by and large seemed to believe McDonnell’s contention that they no longer represented his position. McDonnell ran a very smart “centrist” political campaign that de-emphasized his social conservatism and pushed job creation instead.
Although President Obama did campaign on behalf of Deeds, he and his administration didn’t put a lot of effort into it and had distanced themselves from the contest in the months leading up to it. The bottom line is Craig Deeds ran a poor political campaign against a savvy Republican with a better campaign strategy and tactics. As for a referendum on President Obama, 60% of the voters said the President had no effect on their vote. Another 20% said Obama moved them to vote for McDonnell while another 20% said he pushed them into voting for Deeds, thus effectively canceling each other out.
A similar story played out in New Jersey where the Republican Attorney General, Chris Christie narrowly beat out incumbent Democratic governor, Jon Corzine for this statehouse executive job. Like McDonnell in Virginia, Christie focused on job creation and the need to reduce New Jersey’s high property taxes and avoided all discussion of his positions on social conservative issues. Governor Jon Corzine had also become very unpopular among a majority of New Jersey voters for his poor handling of the state’s budget, economic and tax problems and his effort to reduce property taxes during the summer were regarded as too little too late by many voters.
However, in contrast to Virginia, President Obama did campaign more aggressively on behalf of the embattled Democratic governor of New Jersey than he did for Craig Deeds in Virginia. But voters in New Jersy mirrored their counterparts in Virginia as regards the influence the President ended up having on their decision about who they would vote for with the vast majority saying it had no effect while the ones who said it did effectively cancelled each other out. So was the New Jersey governor’s race an indication of dissatisfaction with President Obama’s performance? I think not.
One thing that did stand out in both states however, was the demographic makeup of the electorate. Voter turnout in Virginia was about half (only 39% of eligible voters) in the governor’s race versus almost 75% in last year’s Presidential contest, while it was down by over a third in New Jersey. Younger voters who turned out in droves last year didn’t cast as many ballots this year and minority groups that accounted for 20% of the vote in last year’s Presidential race cast less than 15% of the votes in the governor’s race.
Although I think it would be foolish to read much into last week’s general election results, I will discuss some conclusions that both Democrats and Republicans can draw from them next week.
Published on November 12th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In this week’s column I will try to analyze the results of America’s off-year elections. Incidentally, the decision to award the Nobel Prize to Obama had absolutely no effect on these elections and President Obama’s performance during his first year in office had virtually no impact either.
The November 2009 general elections are called off-year elections because odd numbered year elections always follow the even numbered year elections for federal and national offices such as Congress and the Presidentcy. They are also mid-term elections for members of the US House of Representatives who must run for Congress every two years. As such, off-year and mid-term elections tend to be exclusively focused on local, city and state political concerns rather than national politics.
Because voter turnout tends to be much greater when national elections are held and because governments save money by combing local and state elections with federal elections, with few exceptions, most states and cities actually conduct their respective political contests in conjunction with the even numbered year’s federal election cycle. So even though most major cities like New York City, Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Houston and San Francisco have mayoral and city council elections in off-years, the only states that do so are Virginia, New Jersey, Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky.
Given the lack of national political issues involved in last week’s elections, I must confess that I find it amazing as well as somewhat humorous that so much national and international media attention was focused on the state elections for governor in Virginia and New Jersey. Last time I checked no state governor or city mayor has ever taken part in the national domestic and foreign policy decisions made in Washington DC. So why on earth would anyone in the news media think the results from a couple of state and local elections are an indication about how voters feel about Congress and or President Obama’s performance thus far? Well, even though I don’t see much national impact from them, for what it’s worth here is my take on the results of last week’s American elections.
In Virginia, I suspect there was a least one Democrat, Terry McAuliffe, who was secretly smiling about Republican Bob McDonnell’s thumping of Democrat Craig Deeds in the race for governor. However, Terry McAuliffe wasn’t smiling because the man who defeated him in the Democratic primary, Craig Deeds, had lost the general election but rather because he had warned Deeds and Virginia Democrats that they would lose the governor’s race unless they made jobs and economic development the focus of their campaign. Craig Deeds preferred to focus on a Masters thesis McDonnell had written twenty years ago in which he expressed rather extreme anti-gay and anti-feminist sentiments. Instead, it was the Republican candidate, McDonnell who followed this script and the result was he won the governor’s race going away by a double digit margin.
By focusing on “old” political views that McDonnell said he no longer held, Deeds actually succeeded in reinforcing McDonnell’s support among older white social conservative voters who overwhelmingly supported his candidacy. On the other hand, the suburban white female voters Deeds was trying to alarm with his focus on these “old” social conservative views, by and large seemed to believe McDonnell’s contention that they no longer represented his position. McDonnell ran a very smart “centrist” political campaign that de-emphasized his social conservatism and pushed job creation instead.
Although President Obama did campaign on behalf of Deeds, he and his administration didn’t put a lot of effort into it and had distanced themselves from the contest in the months leading up to it. The bottom line is Craig Deeds ran a poor political campaign against a savvy Republican with a better campaign strategy and tactics. As for a referendum on President Obama, 60% of the voters said the President had no effect on their vote. Another 20% said Obama moved them to vote for McDonnell while another 20% said he pushed them into voting for Deeds, thus effectively canceling each other out.
A similar story played out in New Jersey where the Republican Attorney General, Chris Christie narrowly beat out incumbent Democratic governor, Jon Corzine for this statehouse executive job. Like McDonnell in Virginia, Christie focused on job creation and the need to reduce New Jersey’s high property taxes and avoided all discussion of his positions on social conservative issues. Governor Jon Corzine had also become very unpopular among a majority of New Jersey voters for his poor handling of the state’s budget, economic and tax problems and his effort to reduce property taxes during the summer were regarded as too little too late by many voters.
However, in contrast to Virginia, President Obama did campaign more aggressively on behalf of the embattled Democratic governor of New Jersey than he did for Craig Deeds in Virginia. But voters in New Jersy mirrored their counterparts in Virginia as regards the influence the President ended up having on their decision about who they would vote for with the vast majority saying it had no effect while the ones who said it did effectively cancelled each other out. So was the New Jersey governor’s race an indication of dissatisfaction with President Obama’s performance? I think not.
One thing that did stand out in both states however, was the demographic makeup of the electorate. Voter turnout in Virginia was about half (only 39% of eligible voters) in the governor’s race versus almost 75% in last year’s Presidential contest, while it was down by over a third in New Jersey. Younger voters who turned out in droves last year didn’t cast as many ballots this year and minority groups that accounted for 20% of the vote in last year’s Presidential race cast less than 15% of the votes in the governor’s race.
Although I think it would be foolish to read much into last week’s general election results, I will discuss some conclusions that both Democrats and Republicans can draw from them next week.
Why Did They Give President Obama a Nobel Prize?
The Bigger Picture
Published on November 5th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Since Tuesday was Election Day back in the states, I will discuss the results and their implications for President Obama’s political agenda next week. I will use today’s column to conclude my discussion about the negative reactions from some commentators in America to President Obama’s selection as this year’s Nobel Peace Prize recipient.
Last week I said that I basically agreed with the concept that actions speak louder than words. Many of those who expressed disagreement with the Nobel panel’s decision to give this year’s Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama have cited the same idea in support of their arguments that it wasn’t proper to give the Nobel Prize to President Obama at this early stage of his Presidency. They feel it would be more appropriate to wait and see what President Obama actually accomplishes as President before handing him such a prestigious international award.
While I have a great deal of respect for many of the political analysts that made these types of comments, I still strongly disagree with them. Granted, my perspective on American politics has been altered by living abroad here in Dublin for the last three years. But I also know that there are many other political commentators back in the states who have never lived abroad who nonetheless share the same sentiments that I do.
As I mentioned last week, the motives of political extremists on the right and left who condemned the selection of President Obama are just as transparent as those of the Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists who have now become their newest allies. Sowing seeds of mistrust and hate is an integral part of the message these rigid thinking people want others to believe. So a national and world leader who seeks to inspire ordinary citizens in both the US and the rest of the world with a message of hope and peace undercuts their message and reduces the chances that their skewed vision of the world will prevail.
And in at least a few instances, any accolades given to President Obama simply serve as an opportunity for money-grubbing demagogues like Rush Limbaugh to rally their rigid thinking acolytes to call in and voice their displeasure. What these simpletons don’t realize however is that “Rushbo” and others like him use these calls as proof of the popularity of their shows to radio and TV advertisers. Truth be known, Rush Limbaugh makes a lot more money from advertising sales when there is a Democrat like Clinton (and now Obama) in the White House than when someone named Bush resides there.
But ascertaining the motivations of more thoughtful US political commentators is a much tougher task, especially when they are people you respect and in some cases seek to emulate. While I may be wrong in my assessments of these political analysts’ motives, I truly believe most of the negative reactions that they expressed were quite sincere.
Many of them are just as dismayed by the partisan political gamesmanship they see on display in Washington DC as I am, so stoking partisan flames doesn’t make any sense to me as a motive for them. Nor do any of them have radio and TV shows that would benefit from rousing anti-Obama supporters as a means of demonstrating their shows’ popularity to advertisers. Furthermore, most of them have been generally supportive of President Obama’s economic stimulus, environmental and healthcare reform proposals, so undercutting the President doesn’t make sense in this regard either.
So although I think their motives were genuinely sincere, I also think they were rooted in the fact that they are also products of America’s somewhat unique cultural affinities. Like me, they were all born and raised in an American culture that celebrates and recognizes real achievements more than it does hopeful aspirations or abstract ideas. It’s not that Americans and American culture doesn’t appreciate those with a gift for lofty words and inspiring speeches; it’s just that Americans expect them to be translated into action. If they aren’t, then Americans tend to view them as impractical and rather useless.
But precisely because they, like so many other Americans have been raised to believe that “actions speak louder than words”, I think those political commentators who were critical of the Nobel committee’s decision to award the Peace Prize to President Obama missed a very critical point. The world may no longer be threatened by the possibility that the Cold War could become a nuclear holocaust, but there are still many other potential disasters lurking on the horizon. So the words and vision of America’s President matter because the world is looking to America for solutions to these problems.
President Bush, Vice-President Cheney and their neo-conservative Republican allies used the American public’s anger and revulsion over the 9/11 terrorists attacks to advance their idea that America was powerful enough to replace recalcitrant regimes and transform those countries into a mirror image of America. They demanded concessions from their adversaries as a pre-condition to even talking directly with them. But their bullying tactics didn’t work and President Obama is now trying to salvage what he can from the disastrous economic and military policies his predecessors implemented.
Obama knows that while America may still be the most economically and militarily powerful country in the world; it no longer has the political will or the wallet it needs to bend opponents to its will. Obama also realizes that the process of resolving the worlds many conflicts can’t begin until we first change the rhetoric we are using and stop demonizing those we disagree with. Obama is also secure enough that he can talk to America’s enemies instead of trying to bully them.
The Nobel award is recognition that President Obama’s use of rhetoric is important because he is setting an example for other political leaders around the world. Unlike some US commentators, the Nobel panel also realizes that without a change in political leaders’ rhetoric, the chances of resolving the world’s conflicts are slim and none.
Published on November 5th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Since Tuesday was Election Day back in the states, I will discuss the results and their implications for President Obama’s political agenda next week. I will use today’s column to conclude my discussion about the negative reactions from some commentators in America to President Obama’s selection as this year’s Nobel Peace Prize recipient.
Last week I said that I basically agreed with the concept that actions speak louder than words. Many of those who expressed disagreement with the Nobel panel’s decision to give this year’s Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama have cited the same idea in support of their arguments that it wasn’t proper to give the Nobel Prize to President Obama at this early stage of his Presidency. They feel it would be more appropriate to wait and see what President Obama actually accomplishes as President before handing him such a prestigious international award.
While I have a great deal of respect for many of the political analysts that made these types of comments, I still strongly disagree with them. Granted, my perspective on American politics has been altered by living abroad here in Dublin for the last three years. But I also know that there are many other political commentators back in the states who have never lived abroad who nonetheless share the same sentiments that I do.
As I mentioned last week, the motives of political extremists on the right and left who condemned the selection of President Obama are just as transparent as those of the Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists who have now become their newest allies. Sowing seeds of mistrust and hate is an integral part of the message these rigid thinking people want others to believe. So a national and world leader who seeks to inspire ordinary citizens in both the US and the rest of the world with a message of hope and peace undercuts their message and reduces the chances that their skewed vision of the world will prevail.
And in at least a few instances, any accolades given to President Obama simply serve as an opportunity for money-grubbing demagogues like Rush Limbaugh to rally their rigid thinking acolytes to call in and voice their displeasure. What these simpletons don’t realize however is that “Rushbo” and others like him use these calls as proof of the popularity of their shows to radio and TV advertisers. Truth be known, Rush Limbaugh makes a lot more money from advertising sales when there is a Democrat like Clinton (and now Obama) in the White House than when someone named Bush resides there.
But ascertaining the motivations of more thoughtful US political commentators is a much tougher task, especially when they are people you respect and in some cases seek to emulate. While I may be wrong in my assessments of these political analysts’ motives, I truly believe most of the negative reactions that they expressed were quite sincere.
Many of them are just as dismayed by the partisan political gamesmanship they see on display in Washington DC as I am, so stoking partisan flames doesn’t make any sense to me as a motive for them. Nor do any of them have radio and TV shows that would benefit from rousing anti-Obama supporters as a means of demonstrating their shows’ popularity to advertisers. Furthermore, most of them have been generally supportive of President Obama’s economic stimulus, environmental and healthcare reform proposals, so undercutting the President doesn’t make sense in this regard either.
So although I think their motives were genuinely sincere, I also think they were rooted in the fact that they are also products of America’s somewhat unique cultural affinities. Like me, they were all born and raised in an American culture that celebrates and recognizes real achievements more than it does hopeful aspirations or abstract ideas. It’s not that Americans and American culture doesn’t appreciate those with a gift for lofty words and inspiring speeches; it’s just that Americans expect them to be translated into action. If they aren’t, then Americans tend to view them as impractical and rather useless.
But precisely because they, like so many other Americans have been raised to believe that “actions speak louder than words”, I think those political commentators who were critical of the Nobel committee’s decision to award the Peace Prize to President Obama missed a very critical point. The world may no longer be threatened by the possibility that the Cold War could become a nuclear holocaust, but there are still many other potential disasters lurking on the horizon. So the words and vision of America’s President matter because the world is looking to America for solutions to these problems.
President Bush, Vice-President Cheney and their neo-conservative Republican allies used the American public’s anger and revulsion over the 9/11 terrorists attacks to advance their idea that America was powerful enough to replace recalcitrant regimes and transform those countries into a mirror image of America. They demanded concessions from their adversaries as a pre-condition to even talking directly with them. But their bullying tactics didn’t work and President Obama is now trying to salvage what he can from the disastrous economic and military policies his predecessors implemented.
Obama knows that while America may still be the most economically and militarily powerful country in the world; it no longer has the political will or the wallet it needs to bend opponents to its will. Obama also realizes that the process of resolving the worlds many conflicts can’t begin until we first change the rhetoric we are using and stop demonizing those we disagree with. Obama is also secure enough that he can talk to America’s enemies instead of trying to bully them.
The Nobel award is recognition that President Obama’s use of rhetoric is important because he is setting an example for other political leaders around the world. Unlike some US commentators, the Nobel panel also realizes that without a change in political leaders’ rhetoric, the chances of resolving the world’s conflicts are slim and none.
The Nobel Prize for President Obama
The Bigger Picture
Published on October 29th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
As I said at the end of last week’s column “partisan political conservatives were by no means the only members of the political news media in America questioning the Nobel panel’s decision to award President Barack Obama its Peace Prize.”
Not surprisingly, there were also some folks on the political left, both in America and other parts of the world, who denounced the Nobel decision because nine months into President Obama’s first term; America is still engaged in a war with Islamic extremists in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The extreme left will never accept anything less than a total withdrawal of American military forces from the region while the extreme right will claim with equal fervor that a withdrawal represents a capitulation to terrorism.
But political extremists, be they right wing conservatives or left wing liberals, are all actually cut from the same cloth in my humble opinion. The same is also true of most Christian conservatives, ultra-orthodox Jews and Islamic fundamentalists. That’s because, from a psychological perspective, they have so much more in common with each other than they do with the vast majority of other people who live in their societies.
From where I sit, political and pseudo-religious political extremists only differ in terms of their respective ideological, political and or religious views. But if you look just below the surface you will find exactly the same type of person and personality. They are all extremely fearful people who are unable to comprehend the complexities of life and adjust to changes that are simply a part of living within a society of other social beings. They are suspicious of others who don’t share their views, see conspiracies happening all around them and are prone to suffering from severe bouts of paranoia.
In short, these extremists are ruled by their numerous real and or imagined fears. They struggle to try to control those aspects of life that they are most afraid of and react to everything that happens out of fear. They simply must be in control of everything that affects their lives or else they fear that much worse things will happen to them. That is why they are so prone to trying to bully others emotionally, verbally and if all else fails, physically and quite often very violently.
They see the entire world and every issue, every decision, every position and every choice that one must make in life in very rigid terms of black or white, good or evil, right or wrong. For these poor souls there is no such thing as a middle ground or compromise with those who don’t share their exact same view of the world.
So it really comes as no surprise that such apparently disparate extremists like al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Rush Limbaugh and left wing political extremists all now find themselves in universal agreement that Barack Obama doesn’t deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. They find themselves in agreement about Obama precisely because President Obama doesn’t hew to the rigid ideological lines and perspectives on life they have.
As such, Barack Obama is a very real threat to their fragile psychological existence. If by some chance President Obama were to succeed in forging compromises that a majority of other people within their respective societies found acceptable, then what would become of the world vision they espouse? No, they simply can’t allow people like President Obama the opportunity to bring quarrelsome factions together.
What really concerns me though is the fact that some political commentators, who are generally more thoughtful and centrist in their political views, picked up on some of the reasons being given by extremists, on both the right and the left, as to why President Obama didn’t deserve the Nobel Prize and ran with them. The general argument on the part of these commentators is that Obama hasn’t really done anything to deserve such an award, or at least he hasn’t done anything substantial enough to deserve it yet.
But some of these negative opinions were also tinged with disappointment that nominees they felt were more deserving didn’t win. Indeed I can sympathize with them to some extent because there were some very worthy candidates in addition to President Obama. One example was Greg Mortenson, who has built over 100 schools to educate girls and young women in Afghanistan and Pakistan through his Central Asia Institute. But the reality of any prestigious award such as the Nobel Prize is that it is an honour just to be considered, because there can only be one winner chosen and there are equally good arguments that can be made on behalf of all of those who don’t win them.
With some others, I sensed they were afraid that awarding Obama the Nobel Prize at this early stage of his Presidency would diminish his chances of future success. These commentators genuinely want President Obama to vanquish his right wing and often racist opponents and implement the many domestic and foreign policy changes he has proposed. While I understand their concerns, I don’t see how they are helping President Obama succeed by publicly decrying his being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
But after pondering why these usually level headed political pundits would respond to the Nobel announcement in such a surprising manner, I believe I have finally sorted out an explanation for their behaviour. Understanding their somewhat curious reasoning however, requires an understanding of American cultural values that extol action. Growing up in America, one constantly hears the phrases; “Actions speak louder than words.” And “Talk is cheap.” If I had a dollar or a euro for every time I have heard someone in the states quote either of these two phrases, I would be a very wealth man.
Mind you, I happen to be someone who believes in the core concept contained within both of these phrases. More often than not, what you do is much more meaningful than what you say. I’ll conclude this discussion about President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize next week.
Published on October 29th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
As I said at the end of last week’s column “partisan political conservatives were by no means the only members of the political news media in America questioning the Nobel panel’s decision to award President Barack Obama its Peace Prize.”
Not surprisingly, there were also some folks on the political left, both in America and other parts of the world, who denounced the Nobel decision because nine months into President Obama’s first term; America is still engaged in a war with Islamic extremists in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The extreme left will never accept anything less than a total withdrawal of American military forces from the region while the extreme right will claim with equal fervor that a withdrawal represents a capitulation to terrorism.
But political extremists, be they right wing conservatives or left wing liberals, are all actually cut from the same cloth in my humble opinion. The same is also true of most Christian conservatives, ultra-orthodox Jews and Islamic fundamentalists. That’s because, from a psychological perspective, they have so much more in common with each other than they do with the vast majority of other people who live in their societies.
From where I sit, political and pseudo-religious political extremists only differ in terms of their respective ideological, political and or religious views. But if you look just below the surface you will find exactly the same type of person and personality. They are all extremely fearful people who are unable to comprehend the complexities of life and adjust to changes that are simply a part of living within a society of other social beings. They are suspicious of others who don’t share their views, see conspiracies happening all around them and are prone to suffering from severe bouts of paranoia.
In short, these extremists are ruled by their numerous real and or imagined fears. They struggle to try to control those aspects of life that they are most afraid of and react to everything that happens out of fear. They simply must be in control of everything that affects their lives or else they fear that much worse things will happen to them. That is why they are so prone to trying to bully others emotionally, verbally and if all else fails, physically and quite often very violently.
They see the entire world and every issue, every decision, every position and every choice that one must make in life in very rigid terms of black or white, good or evil, right or wrong. For these poor souls there is no such thing as a middle ground or compromise with those who don’t share their exact same view of the world.
So it really comes as no surprise that such apparently disparate extremists like al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Rush Limbaugh and left wing political extremists all now find themselves in universal agreement that Barack Obama doesn’t deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. They find themselves in agreement about Obama precisely because President Obama doesn’t hew to the rigid ideological lines and perspectives on life they have.
As such, Barack Obama is a very real threat to their fragile psychological existence. If by some chance President Obama were to succeed in forging compromises that a majority of other people within their respective societies found acceptable, then what would become of the world vision they espouse? No, they simply can’t allow people like President Obama the opportunity to bring quarrelsome factions together.
What really concerns me though is the fact that some political commentators, who are generally more thoughtful and centrist in their political views, picked up on some of the reasons being given by extremists, on both the right and the left, as to why President Obama didn’t deserve the Nobel Prize and ran with them. The general argument on the part of these commentators is that Obama hasn’t really done anything to deserve such an award, or at least he hasn’t done anything substantial enough to deserve it yet.
But some of these negative opinions were also tinged with disappointment that nominees they felt were more deserving didn’t win. Indeed I can sympathize with them to some extent because there were some very worthy candidates in addition to President Obama. One example was Greg Mortenson, who has built over 100 schools to educate girls and young women in Afghanistan and Pakistan through his Central Asia Institute. But the reality of any prestigious award such as the Nobel Prize is that it is an honour just to be considered, because there can only be one winner chosen and there are equally good arguments that can be made on behalf of all of those who don’t win them.
With some others, I sensed they were afraid that awarding Obama the Nobel Prize at this early stage of his Presidency would diminish his chances of future success. These commentators genuinely want President Obama to vanquish his right wing and often racist opponents and implement the many domestic and foreign policy changes he has proposed. While I understand their concerns, I don’t see how they are helping President Obama succeed by publicly decrying his being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
But after pondering why these usually level headed political pundits would respond to the Nobel announcement in such a surprising manner, I believe I have finally sorted out an explanation for their behaviour. Understanding their somewhat curious reasoning however, requires an understanding of American cultural values that extol action. Growing up in America, one constantly hears the phrases; “Actions speak louder than words.” And “Talk is cheap.” If I had a dollar or a euro for every time I have heard someone in the states quote either of these two phrases, I would be a very wealth man.
Mind you, I happen to be someone who believes in the core concept contained within both of these phrases. More often than not, what you do is much more meaningful than what you say. I’ll conclude this discussion about President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize next week.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Congratulations to President Barack Obama?
The Bigger Picture
Published on October 22nd in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Well I guess this must be my month for Congratulations. First Ireland for its vote to approve the Lisbon Treaty, then Brazil for its selection as the host country for the 2016 Summer Olympics and today I’m offering congratulations to President Obama for being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Now I’m wondering who I’ll congratulate next week.
But back in the states the reaction of many political pundits and columnists to our Presidents Nobel award has been anything but congratulatory. Conservative radio and TV talk show demagogues even went so far as to offer up comments that if uttered by a liberal or a Democrat would have been considered downright un-patriotic.
Leading the way was, who else but the Republican Party’s right-wing “King of Bombast”, Rush Limbaugh. While discussing President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize on his radio show, he told his audience that “Something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn't deserve the award.” Hmmm. By “we” I’m guessing “Rushbo” was referring to his “ditto heads” listeners, who have of course never heard Limbaugh say anything that they didn’t whole-heartedly agree with.
Still not satisfied his comments, Rush then went on to tell Newsweek magazine that “the Nobel gang just suicide-bombed themselves.” While I’m not exactly sure the analogy between the Nobel panel’s decision to give an award to President Obama and al Qaeda’s decision to dispatch suicide bombers to kill innocent people actually makes sense, then again considering the source and his audience, I guess it doesn’t have to.
Nor was “Rushbo” alone in his thinking about what a bad choice the Nobel panel made. Another conservative heart-throb, Glenn Beck, claimed President Obama’s accolade was due to a powerful conspiracy of global progressive (left-wing) interest groups. While believing Obama’s Nobel Prize was the result of a global conspiracy might be a bit of a stretch, Beck’s suggestion that the organizers of this year’s anti-tax “tea parties” was the most deserving choice for the Nobel Peace Prize simply defies all logic.
Another conservative extremist and political columnist took a different tack, focusing more on attacking the award itself rather than its recipient. Andrew McCarthy is a former Assistant United States Attorney for New York who once prosecuted Islamic terrorists including Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. McCarthy now writes for the National Review and has repeatedly attacked President Obama as a left wing radical as well as defended “waterboarding” as a legitimate interrogation technique, not torture.
McCarthy claims that the Nobel Peace Prize had become “damaged goods” ever since it was awarded to Yasser Arafat in 1994. Funny, but as I recall, the 1994 Nobel was given to three men, Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres in recognition of the Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement. Then again maybe if I had a law degree I could understand Mr. McCarthy’s logic; i.e. waterboarding is not torture and giving a peace prize to the political leaders who forged a peace agreement lessens its value. But since I don’t I guess I’ll just have to continue to muddle along with my limited legal knowledge.
Of course the supposedly better educated and more erudite members of the Republican Party’s neo-conservative establishment weren’t exactly congratulating President Obama either. Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, a man who is always spoiling for America to send its military forces into battle, simply said President Obama should decline the Nobel award. Bolton speaks with such authority because he avoided risking his life during the Vietnam War by joining the Army National Guard.
Last, but certainly not least, Conservative political ideologue saw an analog between President Obama’s Peace Prize and the Nobel Peace Prize that was given to Russia’s Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990. Kristol claims that since Gorbachev resigned as the President of the Soviet Union (the day before it was officially desolved) just over a year after he had been awarded the Nobel that means President Obama will lose when he runs for a second term as US president in 2012.
I guess I’m just not smart enough yet, but I don’t exactly see a parallel between resigning the Presidency of the Soviet Union in 1991, a year after being given the Nobel Peace Prize, and losing a US Presidential re-election campaign in 2012, three years after being given the same award. Well, maybe I’ll be able to make more sense of this once I have a PhD. For those of you who may not know who he is, Bill Kristol has a PhD and is also the editor of a Rupert Murdoch’s conservative political periodical, The Weekly Standard. Still and all, even though Mr. Kristol does have a PhD in Government from Harvard, he also has yet to grasp the meaning of the term “journalistic integrity.”
At the very least though, the Nobel committee has succeeded in finding a way to help America’s right-wingers overcome their paranoid hatred of all things Muslim. Rush Limbaugh’s “ditto heads” and other American right-wingers have finally found some common ground with Muslim extremists and al Qaeda terrorists; they all hate President Obama and all of them are afraid President Obama might some day succeed. Wow! Partisan politics sure does make for some strange bedfellows now doesn’t it?
Frankly though, I can’t really say I’m that surprised by the attacks on President Obama and the Nobel Prize committee that have resulted from this award. Disappointed maybe, but given the partisan rancor that President Obama’s election has engendered for the past year, hardly surprised that Republican neo-conservatives and right wing political demagogues have sought to disparage any award being given to President Obama.
What really concerned and disappointed me though, is the fact that partisan political conservatives were by no means the only members of the political news media in America questioning the Nobel panel’s decision to award President Barack Obama its Peace Prize. I will discuss those opinions as well as my own take on the Nobel Peace Prize award in next week’s column.
Published on October 22nd in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Well I guess this must be my month for Congratulations. First Ireland for its vote to approve the Lisbon Treaty, then Brazil for its selection as the host country for the 2016 Summer Olympics and today I’m offering congratulations to President Obama for being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Now I’m wondering who I’ll congratulate next week.
But back in the states the reaction of many political pundits and columnists to our Presidents Nobel award has been anything but congratulatory. Conservative radio and TV talk show demagogues even went so far as to offer up comments that if uttered by a liberal or a Democrat would have been considered downright un-patriotic.
Leading the way was, who else but the Republican Party’s right-wing “King of Bombast”, Rush Limbaugh. While discussing President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize on his radio show, he told his audience that “Something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn't deserve the award.” Hmmm. By “we” I’m guessing “Rushbo” was referring to his “ditto heads” listeners, who have of course never heard Limbaugh say anything that they didn’t whole-heartedly agree with.
Still not satisfied his comments, Rush then went on to tell Newsweek magazine that “the Nobel gang just suicide-bombed themselves.” While I’m not exactly sure the analogy between the Nobel panel’s decision to give an award to President Obama and al Qaeda’s decision to dispatch suicide bombers to kill innocent people actually makes sense, then again considering the source and his audience, I guess it doesn’t have to.
Nor was “Rushbo” alone in his thinking about what a bad choice the Nobel panel made. Another conservative heart-throb, Glenn Beck, claimed President Obama’s accolade was due to a powerful conspiracy of global progressive (left-wing) interest groups. While believing Obama’s Nobel Prize was the result of a global conspiracy might be a bit of a stretch, Beck’s suggestion that the organizers of this year’s anti-tax “tea parties” was the most deserving choice for the Nobel Peace Prize simply defies all logic.
Another conservative extremist and political columnist took a different tack, focusing more on attacking the award itself rather than its recipient. Andrew McCarthy is a former Assistant United States Attorney for New York who once prosecuted Islamic terrorists including Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. McCarthy now writes for the National Review and has repeatedly attacked President Obama as a left wing radical as well as defended “waterboarding” as a legitimate interrogation technique, not torture.
McCarthy claims that the Nobel Peace Prize had become “damaged goods” ever since it was awarded to Yasser Arafat in 1994. Funny, but as I recall, the 1994 Nobel was given to three men, Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres in recognition of the Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement. Then again maybe if I had a law degree I could understand Mr. McCarthy’s logic; i.e. waterboarding is not torture and giving a peace prize to the political leaders who forged a peace agreement lessens its value. But since I don’t I guess I’ll just have to continue to muddle along with my limited legal knowledge.
Of course the supposedly better educated and more erudite members of the Republican Party’s neo-conservative establishment weren’t exactly congratulating President Obama either. Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, a man who is always spoiling for America to send its military forces into battle, simply said President Obama should decline the Nobel award. Bolton speaks with such authority because he avoided risking his life during the Vietnam War by joining the Army National Guard.
Last, but certainly not least, Conservative political ideologue saw an analog between President Obama’s Peace Prize and the Nobel Peace Prize that was given to Russia’s Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990. Kristol claims that since Gorbachev resigned as the President of the Soviet Union (the day before it was officially desolved) just over a year after he had been awarded the Nobel that means President Obama will lose when he runs for a second term as US president in 2012.
I guess I’m just not smart enough yet, but I don’t exactly see a parallel between resigning the Presidency of the Soviet Union in 1991, a year after being given the Nobel Peace Prize, and losing a US Presidential re-election campaign in 2012, three years after being given the same award. Well, maybe I’ll be able to make more sense of this once I have a PhD. For those of you who may not know who he is, Bill Kristol has a PhD and is also the editor of a Rupert Murdoch’s conservative political periodical, The Weekly Standard. Still and all, even though Mr. Kristol does have a PhD in Government from Harvard, he also has yet to grasp the meaning of the term “journalistic integrity.”
At the very least though, the Nobel committee has succeeded in finding a way to help America’s right-wingers overcome their paranoid hatred of all things Muslim. Rush Limbaugh’s “ditto heads” and other American right-wingers have finally found some common ground with Muslim extremists and al Qaeda terrorists; they all hate President Obama and all of them are afraid President Obama might some day succeed. Wow! Partisan politics sure does make for some strange bedfellows now doesn’t it?
Frankly though, I can’t really say I’m that surprised by the attacks on President Obama and the Nobel Prize committee that have resulted from this award. Disappointed maybe, but given the partisan rancor that President Obama’s election has engendered for the past year, hardly surprised that Republican neo-conservatives and right wing political demagogues have sought to disparage any award being given to President Obama.
What really concerned and disappointed me though, is the fact that partisan political conservatives were by no means the only members of the political news media in America questioning the Nobel panel’s decision to award President Barack Obama its Peace Prize. I will discuss those opinions as well as my own take on the Nobel Peace Prize award in next week’s column.
Congratulations Brazil!
The Bigger Picture
Published on October 15th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Last week I offered my heartfelt congratulations to Ireland for its forward looking vote in favour of the Lisbon Treaty. It was the right thing to do in my opinion although the huge turnaround was probably due to fear based on economic uncertainty rather than a realistic assessment of the Lisbon Treaty’s notable shortcomings.
In an ideal word voters wouldn’t be stampeded into voting for or against someone or something out of fear for the possible effect of an election on their economic well being. But I have also seen such sentiments dominate and determine the outcome of many elections back in the states. We call it “voting your pocketbook”.
But despite political candidates never-ending promises that a vote for them will mean more jobs and better economic conditions, most economists would argue that elected officials don’t really have any control over your economic well-being. Ireland’s long term economic health is determined by factors like education and technological development that are difficult to change in five years. Nor can these politicians take any actions that will have an actual effect on the world’s demand for Ireland’s exports.
I believe Ireland’s membership in the EU has had a positive impact on its overall economic health, but as an EU member Ireland has also had to cede some aspects of its national sovereignty to a supranational EU governance organization based in Brussels. I therefore believe that Ireland can and should continue to have a healthy debate about whether or not all of these trade-offs are actually necessary and or appropriate.
I believe the current governance structure of the EU is unwieldy and badly in need of reform. While the Lisbon Treaty isn’t an ideal solution, on balance I thought it was still a step in the right direction. But even though I favoured the Lisbon Treaty, I don’t agree with those who said a vote against it would have meant economic ruin or exclusion from the EU. It would have delayed the reforms and created uncertainty in the credit markets, but the EU would have continued to function with Ireland as a full member.
But enough about the Lisbon Treaty; it’s the approval of NAMA and an austerity budget that are the arguably more difficult political issues Ireland must grapple with. I just hope Ireland’s politicians will focus on the merits or shortcomings of these proposals rather than drumming up support for their respective positions by using fear tactics.
With my sincere condolences to Chicago, “my kind of town” back in the states, I now want to congratulate Brazil for being selected as the host country for the 2016 Summer Olympic Games. Don’t get me wrong, I would have been thrilled had Chicago been selected instead of Rio de Janeiro as the host city, but I also thought that it was time for the games to finally be held in South America.
After all, the three North American nations have all been the site of at least one Summer Olympics and the United States has been the host country four times, more than any other nation. Just as the World Cup will finally be played on the African continent for the first time, so too will the Summer Olympics call a new continent home for the first time come 2016. Hopefully the World Cup will select Australia and the Summer Olympics will pick a site in Africa at some point in the next decade, so they can both then boast of having at least one their championships played on every continent in the world.
Unfortunately, US President Barack Obama was placed in the proverbial “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” position of making a last minute sales pitch on behalf of his hometown’s Olympic bid. Many pundits and the London bookies immediately assumed that an appearance by the US President before the site selection committee in Copenhagen was a deal clincher for Chicago and America. But when I heard that Obama was just making a quick trip across the pond for his presentation, I knew immediately it wasn’t going to be beneficial to Chicago’s Olympic dreams.
There were several reasons why I made this assessment. I just wish I had acted on them and bet a few quid on Brazil with the bookmakers. For one thing, the US had already hosted four Summer Olympics, most recently in my hometown of Atlanta Georgia in 1996. Another factor was that a Summer Olympics had never been held in South America. In addition to a geographical location for the Summer Olympics in a new continent, the selection of Brazil would be a quasi-political acknowledgement of the huge strides Brazil has made economically and politically as a nation.
So I figured that for these reasons alone, Brazil was the obvious choice the 2016 Games, not America. But Barack Obama has both a captivating image and powerful skills of persuasion, so I understood why he was pressured to try and help clinch the deal for Chicago. But in order to be effective, Obama would have had to spend several days hob-knobbing with the delegates the way Tony Blair did prior to London’s selection.
However, spending that much time pressing Chicago’s bid would have created a firestorm of criticism back in the states, given the host of pressing foreign and domestic policy decisions President Obama is grappling with. But not helping Chicago would have generated criticism that he should have at least tried to help in the event that Chicago lost.
So President Obama did what he had to do. Then I read that “some delegates said they were less than impressed that Mr. Obama stayed just four hours” so they didn’t vote for Chicago because they thought this was disrespectful. I’m sorry, but I have no absolutely no respect for small minded delegates who think Obama’s quick trip didn’t show them the respect they were due. Delegates, who hold such sentiments, instead show that they’re incapable of carrying Obama’s shoes, much less walking in them.
Published on October 15th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Last week I offered my heartfelt congratulations to Ireland for its forward looking vote in favour of the Lisbon Treaty. It was the right thing to do in my opinion although the huge turnaround was probably due to fear based on economic uncertainty rather than a realistic assessment of the Lisbon Treaty’s notable shortcomings.
In an ideal word voters wouldn’t be stampeded into voting for or against someone or something out of fear for the possible effect of an election on their economic well being. But I have also seen such sentiments dominate and determine the outcome of many elections back in the states. We call it “voting your pocketbook”.
But despite political candidates never-ending promises that a vote for them will mean more jobs and better economic conditions, most economists would argue that elected officials don’t really have any control over your economic well-being. Ireland’s long term economic health is determined by factors like education and technological development that are difficult to change in five years. Nor can these politicians take any actions that will have an actual effect on the world’s demand for Ireland’s exports.
I believe Ireland’s membership in the EU has had a positive impact on its overall economic health, but as an EU member Ireland has also had to cede some aspects of its national sovereignty to a supranational EU governance organization based in Brussels. I therefore believe that Ireland can and should continue to have a healthy debate about whether or not all of these trade-offs are actually necessary and or appropriate.
I believe the current governance structure of the EU is unwieldy and badly in need of reform. While the Lisbon Treaty isn’t an ideal solution, on balance I thought it was still a step in the right direction. But even though I favoured the Lisbon Treaty, I don’t agree with those who said a vote against it would have meant economic ruin or exclusion from the EU. It would have delayed the reforms and created uncertainty in the credit markets, but the EU would have continued to function with Ireland as a full member.
But enough about the Lisbon Treaty; it’s the approval of NAMA and an austerity budget that are the arguably more difficult political issues Ireland must grapple with. I just hope Ireland’s politicians will focus on the merits or shortcomings of these proposals rather than drumming up support for their respective positions by using fear tactics.
With my sincere condolences to Chicago, “my kind of town” back in the states, I now want to congratulate Brazil for being selected as the host country for the 2016 Summer Olympic Games. Don’t get me wrong, I would have been thrilled had Chicago been selected instead of Rio de Janeiro as the host city, but I also thought that it was time for the games to finally be held in South America.
After all, the three North American nations have all been the site of at least one Summer Olympics and the United States has been the host country four times, more than any other nation. Just as the World Cup will finally be played on the African continent for the first time, so too will the Summer Olympics call a new continent home for the first time come 2016. Hopefully the World Cup will select Australia and the Summer Olympics will pick a site in Africa at some point in the next decade, so they can both then boast of having at least one their championships played on every continent in the world.
Unfortunately, US President Barack Obama was placed in the proverbial “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” position of making a last minute sales pitch on behalf of his hometown’s Olympic bid. Many pundits and the London bookies immediately assumed that an appearance by the US President before the site selection committee in Copenhagen was a deal clincher for Chicago and America. But when I heard that Obama was just making a quick trip across the pond for his presentation, I knew immediately it wasn’t going to be beneficial to Chicago’s Olympic dreams.
There were several reasons why I made this assessment. I just wish I had acted on them and bet a few quid on Brazil with the bookmakers. For one thing, the US had already hosted four Summer Olympics, most recently in my hometown of Atlanta Georgia in 1996. Another factor was that a Summer Olympics had never been held in South America. In addition to a geographical location for the Summer Olympics in a new continent, the selection of Brazil would be a quasi-political acknowledgement of the huge strides Brazil has made economically and politically as a nation.
So I figured that for these reasons alone, Brazil was the obvious choice the 2016 Games, not America. But Barack Obama has both a captivating image and powerful skills of persuasion, so I understood why he was pressured to try and help clinch the deal for Chicago. But in order to be effective, Obama would have had to spend several days hob-knobbing with the delegates the way Tony Blair did prior to London’s selection.
However, spending that much time pressing Chicago’s bid would have created a firestorm of criticism back in the states, given the host of pressing foreign and domestic policy decisions President Obama is grappling with. But not helping Chicago would have generated criticism that he should have at least tried to help in the event that Chicago lost.
So President Obama did what he had to do. Then I read that “some delegates said they were less than impressed that Mr. Obama stayed just four hours” so they didn’t vote for Chicago because they thought this was disrespectful. I’m sorry, but I have no absolutely no respect for small minded delegates who think Obama’s quick trip didn’t show them the respect they were due. Delegates, who hold such sentiments, instead show that they’re incapable of carrying Obama’s shoes, much less walking in them.
Congratulations Ireland!
The Bigger Picture
Published on October 8th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Congratulations Ireland! You have at long last taken a big step forward as both a nation and as a people by finally approving the Lisbon Treaty (and by a resounding 2 to 1 margin at that). As we say in the states; “Better late than never.” But this is still only the first of 3 steps Ireland must take to move back from the brink of economic disaster
Now as most of my readers are no doubt aware, I rarely offer any opinions about Irish politicians or Irish political issues in my columns. I figure the last thing you want or need to hear is the opinions of some American interloper regarding such matters. Still and all, I have been living here on the “Emerald Isle” for over three years, so I am not exactly a disinterested observer when it comes to such issues. Since it now looks like I’m going to be here for at least another three years, if not longer, I figure its time for me to stick my neck out a bit and discuss my views about some other pending political decisions.
While I agree with Taoiseach Brian Cowen’s statement that approval of the Lisbon Treaty means “It is a good day for Ireland, it is a good day for Europe”, it is still only one step in the right direction for Ireland. But I also believe two additional, and arguably more politically difficult, steps must still be taken in the coming months. If Ireland doesn’t move forward on both of them, then I fear this country and all of its residents will be paying the price for not doing so for many years to come.
While maintaining its membership in the EU provides Ireland with some noteworthy economic benefits, Ireland is still a sovereign nation and its government’s debts are still treated as such by other countries and private investors. The current yields on Irish government bonds, and thus the interest rates Ireland and its taxpayers will have to pay to finance its budget deficits, are the highest of all the Euro zone nations. This is a reflection of the credit market’s assessment that Ireland is still on shaky financial ground even though it is also a member of the more financially stable EU.
Approving the Lisbon Treaty was great for the EU because, despite the Treaty’s shortcomings, attempting to maintain the status quo of the current governance structure in the enlarged 27 nation EU was no longer a viable option. I think changing the EU’s governance structure will in time provide more economic and social stability for the EU as a whole as well as for all of its individual member states, including Ireland
On the other hand a second rejection of the Lisbon Treaty would have postponed the needed governance reforms for at least several more years. This would have not only had a negative impact on other EU nations, but it would have also called into question Ireland’s membership in the EU. The credit markets would have also responded very negatively to a rejection as they are prone to do whenever they sense political instability. The yields on Ireland’s sovereign debt would have soared even higher and eventually infected Ireland with the disease of bankruptcy and economic stagflation Iceland is suffering from.
So although Ireland took an important step back from the brink of financial disaster, make no mistake, this country is still teetering on the edge in my humble opinion. I’m sure there are many people here who would disagree with me, but I strongly believe that Ireland’s politicians must also pass the legislation to create NAMA, the National Asset Management Agency, and approve an austerity budget in the coming months if Ireland is to avoid an even worse economic disease than it currently faces.
I realize that many Irish citizens and politicians have strong misgivings about taking either or both of these remaining steps towards putting Ireland’s public and private finances in order. Unfortunately, there are no other alternatives to these two additional steps that the global credit markets will consider economically viable and appropriate. And if the credit markets aren’t happy with what Ireland is doing then trust me, no one here in Ireland will be happy with the consequences of the credit market’s displeasure.
Is NAMA a government sponsored taxpayer bailout of private banks and some of their irresponsible executives, shareholders and wealthy investors? Absolutely! Is the Irish government paying too much for the toxic property and development assets it’s taking off these banks’ books? Probably! But the issue isn’t what those assets would fetch in today’s market, because if the government paid that price it would be far too low to help the banks attract the private investments they will need to start lending money again.
Like it or not, while you can quibble about whether the government should pay 30% or 40% less than face value for those toxic assets, it will still have to pay more than they are worth now or will be for the next several years. Is that fair? No, but who ever said life was going to be fair?
The austerity budget that lawmakers must also approve in the coming months will also be one that will inflict pain on many Irish residents, both in terms of higher taxes and spending cuts. In an ideal world worthwhile social programs wouldn’t see their funding cut and hardworking residents wouldn’t have to pay higher taxes to help balance the government’s budget. The government would also cut the jobs and salaries of employees who don’t do any meaningful work instead of cutting the wages of public sector workers that are truly necessary and provide essential services to Irish residents.
But we don’t live in an ideal world. And because we don’t we are all going to have to swallow some bitter medicine in the months ahead. Why? Because the disease of economic stagflation and bankruptcy is so much worse than the cure for it.
Published on October 8th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Congratulations Ireland! You have at long last taken a big step forward as both a nation and as a people by finally approving the Lisbon Treaty (and by a resounding 2 to 1 margin at that). As we say in the states; “Better late than never.” But this is still only the first of 3 steps Ireland must take to move back from the brink of economic disaster
Now as most of my readers are no doubt aware, I rarely offer any opinions about Irish politicians or Irish political issues in my columns. I figure the last thing you want or need to hear is the opinions of some American interloper regarding such matters. Still and all, I have been living here on the “Emerald Isle” for over three years, so I am not exactly a disinterested observer when it comes to such issues. Since it now looks like I’m going to be here for at least another three years, if not longer, I figure its time for me to stick my neck out a bit and discuss my views about some other pending political decisions.
While I agree with Taoiseach Brian Cowen’s statement that approval of the Lisbon Treaty means “It is a good day for Ireland, it is a good day for Europe”, it is still only one step in the right direction for Ireland. But I also believe two additional, and arguably more politically difficult, steps must still be taken in the coming months. If Ireland doesn’t move forward on both of them, then I fear this country and all of its residents will be paying the price for not doing so for many years to come.
While maintaining its membership in the EU provides Ireland with some noteworthy economic benefits, Ireland is still a sovereign nation and its government’s debts are still treated as such by other countries and private investors. The current yields on Irish government bonds, and thus the interest rates Ireland and its taxpayers will have to pay to finance its budget deficits, are the highest of all the Euro zone nations. This is a reflection of the credit market’s assessment that Ireland is still on shaky financial ground even though it is also a member of the more financially stable EU.
Approving the Lisbon Treaty was great for the EU because, despite the Treaty’s shortcomings, attempting to maintain the status quo of the current governance structure in the enlarged 27 nation EU was no longer a viable option. I think changing the EU’s governance structure will in time provide more economic and social stability for the EU as a whole as well as for all of its individual member states, including Ireland
On the other hand a second rejection of the Lisbon Treaty would have postponed the needed governance reforms for at least several more years. This would have not only had a negative impact on other EU nations, but it would have also called into question Ireland’s membership in the EU. The credit markets would have also responded very negatively to a rejection as they are prone to do whenever they sense political instability. The yields on Ireland’s sovereign debt would have soared even higher and eventually infected Ireland with the disease of bankruptcy and economic stagflation Iceland is suffering from.
So although Ireland took an important step back from the brink of financial disaster, make no mistake, this country is still teetering on the edge in my humble opinion. I’m sure there are many people here who would disagree with me, but I strongly believe that Ireland’s politicians must also pass the legislation to create NAMA, the National Asset Management Agency, and approve an austerity budget in the coming months if Ireland is to avoid an even worse economic disease than it currently faces.
I realize that many Irish citizens and politicians have strong misgivings about taking either or both of these remaining steps towards putting Ireland’s public and private finances in order. Unfortunately, there are no other alternatives to these two additional steps that the global credit markets will consider economically viable and appropriate. And if the credit markets aren’t happy with what Ireland is doing then trust me, no one here in Ireland will be happy with the consequences of the credit market’s displeasure.
Is NAMA a government sponsored taxpayer bailout of private banks and some of their irresponsible executives, shareholders and wealthy investors? Absolutely! Is the Irish government paying too much for the toxic property and development assets it’s taking off these banks’ books? Probably! But the issue isn’t what those assets would fetch in today’s market, because if the government paid that price it would be far too low to help the banks attract the private investments they will need to start lending money again.
Like it or not, while you can quibble about whether the government should pay 30% or 40% less than face value for those toxic assets, it will still have to pay more than they are worth now or will be for the next several years. Is that fair? No, but who ever said life was going to be fair?
The austerity budget that lawmakers must also approve in the coming months will also be one that will inflict pain on many Irish residents, both in terms of higher taxes and spending cuts. In an ideal world worthwhile social programs wouldn’t see their funding cut and hardworking residents wouldn’t have to pay higher taxes to help balance the government’s budget. The government would also cut the jobs and salaries of employees who don’t do any meaningful work instead of cutting the wages of public sector workers that are truly necessary and provide essential services to Irish residents.
But we don’t live in an ideal world. And because we don’t we are all going to have to swallow some bitter medicine in the months ahead. Why? Because the disease of economic stagflation and bankruptcy is so much worse than the cure for it.
The Health of Americans' Healthcare
The Bigger Picture
Published on October 1st in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Today I want to discuss the health of healthcare in America. As evidenced by his nationally televised speech to the US Congress last month, President Obama has made healthcare reform his top domestic policy initiative now that the American economy appears to finally be on the mend. But while the health of the American economy remains the top concern of most Americans, President Obama also believes that healthcare reform must be an essential element of any plan to revive the US economy. Is he right? Let’s see.
On the one hand America does indeed offer its citizens the best healthcare available anywhere in the world that “money can buy.” On the other hand that same statement also encapsulates the single most significant shortcoming of America’s healthcare system. It is the best in the world, but only if you can afford to pay for it. Unfortunately 15% of the American public, over 45 million people, have no health insurance because they can not afford to pay for the best healthcare “money can buy.”
America was actually the first country in the world to provide health insurance and was also the first country to provide different types of injury, disability and sickness coverage. In 1850, Franklin Health Assurance began offering the first private-sponsored insurance for injuries from railroad & steamboat accidents and in 1890 the first private-sponsored insurance for disability & sickness was offered. Then in 1911 the first employer-sponsored group disability & sickness policy was issued and in 1965 the first public-sponsored (government) Medicare group disability & sickness plan was begun.
Today, America is still the world’s leader in medical innovation and spends three times more than Europe does per capita on biomedical research. American companies’ account for 75% of the world’s R&D spending in biotechnology and the top 5 American hospitals carry out more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other country. When it comes to groundbreaking research, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to more U.S. residents than recipients from all other countries in the world combined.
But America also spends an astounding 15% of its GDP on healthcare, more than twice what Ireland spends and also much more than any other country in the world. But if 45 million Americans can’t afford health insurance, how does America finance such an expensive healthcare system for the other 255 million Americans who do have insurance?
Well, of the 85% of Americans who do have health insurance, about 60%, roughly 155 million US citizens, have employer provided group healthcare insurance, 10%, or 25 million people, buy private-sponsored insurance directly from heath insurance companies and the remaining 75 million (mainly 65 years or older Americans) are covered by America’s public-sponsored Medicare health insurance programme.
One would think that if America is spending so much more on healthcare than any other nation on earth, that this additional spending would be reflected in comparisons of the health of Americans with the heath of citizens from other countries. Au contraire! In fact the World Health Organization’s (WHO) ranking of countries based on measures such as infant mortality and life expectancy put the US at the bottom of the WHO’s list of wealthy more developed countries and behind countries like Cuba that aren’t on that list. When the WHO compares American healthcare with healthcare provided by all of its other 190 members, America ranks 1st in spending but 37th in terms of overall healthcare performance, 38th in life expectancy and a dismal 72nd in overall level of health.
Liars figure, but figures don’t lie. So given the preponderance of factual data that tells Americans they are paying more for healthcare but getting less than their counterparts in the EU, Canada and Cuba, why is President Obama’s push to reform America’s system of healthcare arousing so much anger among some American citizens?
Part of the answer is that some of those who are opposed to President Obama’s healthcare reform proposals don’t understand what a poor return they are getting on the money they are spending on healthcare. The 155 million Americans covered by employer paid health insurance plans never see that money in their paychecks so many of them don’t realize that as their employers cost for this coverage grow, the employers pay for this with lower wage increases and by reducing the total number of people they employ.
The 75 million older Americans covered by Medicare don’t realize what this coverage costs because they don’t pay for their medical treatment and drug prescriptions. The US government does. This past August US Representative Gene Green, a Texas Democrat, held a town hall meeting on healthcare. Like many other town hall meetings this summer it was heavily attended by older conservative voters and anti-Obama Republican activists who had been urged to turnout in angry protest by conservative radio and TV talk show host demagogues like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.
At one point during Representative Green’s town hall meeting, a conservative activist speaking against President Obama’s healthcare reforms turned and asked the other attendees if they “oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care.” Almost all of those in attendance said they agreed. Mr. Green then asked how many of those present were on Medicare (A government-run health plan) and almost half of them raised their hands. So people who don’t understand that Medicare is government-run health care aren’t really reacting to the healthcare reforms Obama is proposing.
For some of them, their anger is simply a reflection of their fear of change. Better the devil you know, than the one you don’t. Others may really believe the disinformation about “death panels” that Republican politicians like Sarah Palin are spreading. But I also believe that many of them aren’t actually reacting because of what President Obama is proposing, but rather because of their racial anxiety about who President Obama is. It’s this latent racial fear that cynical Republican politicians are now exploiting to benefit themselves rather than America’s citizens. “Shame!”
Charles Laffiteau is a US Republican from Dallas, Texas who is pursuing a PhD in International Relations and lectures on Contemporary US Business & Society at DCU.
Published on October 1st in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Today I want to discuss the health of healthcare in America. As evidenced by his nationally televised speech to the US Congress last month, President Obama has made healthcare reform his top domestic policy initiative now that the American economy appears to finally be on the mend. But while the health of the American economy remains the top concern of most Americans, President Obama also believes that healthcare reform must be an essential element of any plan to revive the US economy. Is he right? Let’s see.
On the one hand America does indeed offer its citizens the best healthcare available anywhere in the world that “money can buy.” On the other hand that same statement also encapsulates the single most significant shortcoming of America’s healthcare system. It is the best in the world, but only if you can afford to pay for it. Unfortunately 15% of the American public, over 45 million people, have no health insurance because they can not afford to pay for the best healthcare “money can buy.”
America was actually the first country in the world to provide health insurance and was also the first country to provide different types of injury, disability and sickness coverage. In 1850, Franklin Health Assurance began offering the first private-sponsored insurance for injuries from railroad & steamboat accidents and in 1890 the first private-sponsored insurance for disability & sickness was offered. Then in 1911 the first employer-sponsored group disability & sickness policy was issued and in 1965 the first public-sponsored (government) Medicare group disability & sickness plan was begun.
Today, America is still the world’s leader in medical innovation and spends three times more than Europe does per capita on biomedical research. American companies’ account for 75% of the world’s R&D spending in biotechnology and the top 5 American hospitals carry out more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other country. When it comes to groundbreaking research, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to more U.S. residents than recipients from all other countries in the world combined.
But America also spends an astounding 15% of its GDP on healthcare, more than twice what Ireland spends and also much more than any other country in the world. But if 45 million Americans can’t afford health insurance, how does America finance such an expensive healthcare system for the other 255 million Americans who do have insurance?
Well, of the 85% of Americans who do have health insurance, about 60%, roughly 155 million US citizens, have employer provided group healthcare insurance, 10%, or 25 million people, buy private-sponsored insurance directly from heath insurance companies and the remaining 75 million (mainly 65 years or older Americans) are covered by America’s public-sponsored Medicare health insurance programme.
One would think that if America is spending so much more on healthcare than any other nation on earth, that this additional spending would be reflected in comparisons of the health of Americans with the heath of citizens from other countries. Au contraire! In fact the World Health Organization’s (WHO) ranking of countries based on measures such as infant mortality and life expectancy put the US at the bottom of the WHO’s list of wealthy more developed countries and behind countries like Cuba that aren’t on that list. When the WHO compares American healthcare with healthcare provided by all of its other 190 members, America ranks 1st in spending but 37th in terms of overall healthcare performance, 38th in life expectancy and a dismal 72nd in overall level of health.
Liars figure, but figures don’t lie. So given the preponderance of factual data that tells Americans they are paying more for healthcare but getting less than their counterparts in the EU, Canada and Cuba, why is President Obama’s push to reform America’s system of healthcare arousing so much anger among some American citizens?
Part of the answer is that some of those who are opposed to President Obama’s healthcare reform proposals don’t understand what a poor return they are getting on the money they are spending on healthcare. The 155 million Americans covered by employer paid health insurance plans never see that money in their paychecks so many of them don’t realize that as their employers cost for this coverage grow, the employers pay for this with lower wage increases and by reducing the total number of people they employ.
The 75 million older Americans covered by Medicare don’t realize what this coverage costs because they don’t pay for their medical treatment and drug prescriptions. The US government does. This past August US Representative Gene Green, a Texas Democrat, held a town hall meeting on healthcare. Like many other town hall meetings this summer it was heavily attended by older conservative voters and anti-Obama Republican activists who had been urged to turnout in angry protest by conservative radio and TV talk show host demagogues like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.
At one point during Representative Green’s town hall meeting, a conservative activist speaking against President Obama’s healthcare reforms turned and asked the other attendees if they “oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care.” Almost all of those in attendance said they agreed. Mr. Green then asked how many of those present were on Medicare (A government-run health plan) and almost half of them raised their hands. So people who don’t understand that Medicare is government-run health care aren’t really reacting to the healthcare reforms Obama is proposing.
For some of them, their anger is simply a reflection of their fear of change. Better the devil you know, than the one you don’t. Others may really believe the disinformation about “death panels” that Republican politicians like Sarah Palin are spreading. But I also believe that many of them aren’t actually reacting because of what President Obama is proposing, but rather because of their racial anxiety about who President Obama is. It’s this latent racial fear that cynical Republican politicians are now exploiting to benefit themselves rather than America’s citizens. “Shame!”
Charles Laffiteau is a US Republican from Dallas, Texas who is pursuing a PhD in International Relations and lectures on Contemporary US Business & Society at DCU.
Ashamed to be a member of the Republican Party
The Bigger Picture
Published on September 24th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I closed last week’s column by promising to discuss what it was that I saw and heard during President Obama’s most recent nationally televised address to the Congress and America, which made me feel ashamed that I was a member of the Republican Party.
While I thought Representative Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” remonstration was both uncalled for and disrespectful, I have also seen and heard much worse from politicians in the Dáil. But US politicians never interrupt a US President while he is making a speech because a substantial majority of the American public looks askance at such disrespectful behaviour. Frankly, I was more embarrassed for old Joe Wilson making a fool of himself on national TV than I was for myself as a Republican or for President Obama.
It didn’t take long for Representative Wilson to realize what a huge mistake he made by calling the President a liar either. Wilson’s outburst was immediately greeted by “oohs” from the audience, a withering glance from Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, disapproving looks from many of his equally stunned Republican Party colleagues and boos from many Democrats. And when the TV cameras cut to a shot of Joe, he appeared to be very aware that he had really “stepped in it” because he avoided looking at any of his colleagues and instead stared intently at his Blackberry.
He beat a hasty retreat from the House chamber as soon as the speech ended and quickly called President Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel to apologize for his conduct. His website’s server also crashed shortly after the speech ended because it was inundated with angry complaints from American voters. Wilson’s office released a written apology soon afterwards that read; “This evening I let my emotions get the best of me. While I disagree with the president's statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the president for this lack of civility.”
. No, after some considerable reflection, my shame stems from something much more subtle than Joe Wilson’s unseemly accusation. Joe’s behavior was only the most flagrant sign of disrespect that I witnessed that night. But the audience also included other Republicans like Jeb Hensarling and Eric Cantor who have national and or Presidential aspirations.
What I also noticed, but many other people watching didn’t, was that following Joe Wilson’s outburst during the middle section of President Obama’s speech, other, as yet unidentified Republicans, also yelled at the President near the end of his speech. This occurred during the part of the President’s speech where he disputed the erroneous assertions made by some Republican opponents about his healthcare reform legislation.
When President Obama disputed the patently false notion that Sarah Palin, among others, is peddling; that his healthcare reforms would lead to “panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens,” a Republican shouted “Shame!” Then, when the president said, “Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical”, another Republican yelled, “Read the bill!” And when President Obama tried to rebut the charge that his reforms represented a government takeover of health care, another Republican responded by screaming “It’s true!” Joe’s outburst got all the media attention, but it was certainly not the only such outburst that night.
But what I found most disturbing was the behavior of those Republicans who are being touted for greater national exposure and higher political office in the future. While none of them yelled at the President while he was speaking, in their own way they were just as disrespectful as their colleague, Joe Wilson was. Most disconcerting to me was the fact that one of them was my own Congressman, Jeb Hensarling, a man I not only voted for in this and previous elections, but a man I also contributed money to. “Shame!”
When President Obama was trying to allay the fears of those Americans who have private health insurance by telling them “nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have,” the TV cameras cut to a shot of the Republicans in the audience and there sat Jeb Hensarling shaking his head in mocking disbelief. Hensarling is not only one of the top Republican leaders in Washington; he is also the odds on choice to win the US Senate seat being vacated by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison so she can run for Governor of Texas.
The TV cameras also cut away several times during the President’s address to show the reactions of House minority leader John Boehner and House minority whip, Eric Cantor. Boehner always looked disgusted, which was no surprise, while Cantor was always shown playing with his Blackberry. But when this subtle yet obvious show of disrespect was brought to his attention, Cantor lamely claimed “he was reading excerpts of Obama's speech on the BlackBerry and taking notes as he did so.” Yeah, right!
I’m sorry, but I’m the type of person who believes that if you want me to listen to what you have to say, then even if we disagree, you owe me the same respect. Now ladies, correct me if I’m wrong here, but I don’t know any men who can listen to what you are saying while they are watching TV, playing video games or typing on their Blackberry. Do you?
Effective political leaders know that politics is the art of compromise and that compromises cannot be forged if you won’t listen or show respect for your opponents’ positions. But last Wednesday, my party’s two brightest rising stars in Washington showed they had no respect for the opinions of our nation’s President. So because my party’s current leaders are focused on harnessing public anger to win election instead of addressing America’s problems, they have also shown that they are incapable of running our country. And that’s a very shameful thing for a life long Republican to have to admit!
Next week I’ll discuss the health of healthcare in America.
Charles Laffiteau is a US Republican from Dallas, Texas who is pursuing a PhD in International Relations and lectures on Contemporary US Business & Society at DCU.
Published on September 24th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I closed last week’s column by promising to discuss what it was that I saw and heard during President Obama’s most recent nationally televised address to the Congress and America, which made me feel ashamed that I was a member of the Republican Party.
While I thought Representative Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” remonstration was both uncalled for and disrespectful, I have also seen and heard much worse from politicians in the Dáil. But US politicians never interrupt a US President while he is making a speech because a substantial majority of the American public looks askance at such disrespectful behaviour. Frankly, I was more embarrassed for old Joe Wilson making a fool of himself on national TV than I was for myself as a Republican or for President Obama.
It didn’t take long for Representative Wilson to realize what a huge mistake he made by calling the President a liar either. Wilson’s outburst was immediately greeted by “oohs” from the audience, a withering glance from Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, disapproving looks from many of his equally stunned Republican Party colleagues and boos from many Democrats. And when the TV cameras cut to a shot of Joe, he appeared to be very aware that he had really “stepped in it” because he avoided looking at any of his colleagues and instead stared intently at his Blackberry.
He beat a hasty retreat from the House chamber as soon as the speech ended and quickly called President Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel to apologize for his conduct. His website’s server also crashed shortly after the speech ended because it was inundated with angry complaints from American voters. Wilson’s office released a written apology soon afterwards that read; “This evening I let my emotions get the best of me. While I disagree with the president's statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the president for this lack of civility.”
. No, after some considerable reflection, my shame stems from something much more subtle than Joe Wilson’s unseemly accusation. Joe’s behavior was only the most flagrant sign of disrespect that I witnessed that night. But the audience also included other Republicans like Jeb Hensarling and Eric Cantor who have national and or Presidential aspirations.
What I also noticed, but many other people watching didn’t, was that following Joe Wilson’s outburst during the middle section of President Obama’s speech, other, as yet unidentified Republicans, also yelled at the President near the end of his speech. This occurred during the part of the President’s speech where he disputed the erroneous assertions made by some Republican opponents about his healthcare reform legislation.
When President Obama disputed the patently false notion that Sarah Palin, among others, is peddling; that his healthcare reforms would lead to “panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens,” a Republican shouted “Shame!” Then, when the president said, “Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical”, another Republican yelled, “Read the bill!” And when President Obama tried to rebut the charge that his reforms represented a government takeover of health care, another Republican responded by screaming “It’s true!” Joe’s outburst got all the media attention, but it was certainly not the only such outburst that night.
But what I found most disturbing was the behavior of those Republicans who are being touted for greater national exposure and higher political office in the future. While none of them yelled at the President while he was speaking, in their own way they were just as disrespectful as their colleague, Joe Wilson was. Most disconcerting to me was the fact that one of them was my own Congressman, Jeb Hensarling, a man I not only voted for in this and previous elections, but a man I also contributed money to. “Shame!”
When President Obama was trying to allay the fears of those Americans who have private health insurance by telling them “nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have,” the TV cameras cut to a shot of the Republicans in the audience and there sat Jeb Hensarling shaking his head in mocking disbelief. Hensarling is not only one of the top Republican leaders in Washington; he is also the odds on choice to win the US Senate seat being vacated by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison so she can run for Governor of Texas.
The TV cameras also cut away several times during the President’s address to show the reactions of House minority leader John Boehner and House minority whip, Eric Cantor. Boehner always looked disgusted, which was no surprise, while Cantor was always shown playing with his Blackberry. But when this subtle yet obvious show of disrespect was brought to his attention, Cantor lamely claimed “he was reading excerpts of Obama's speech on the BlackBerry and taking notes as he did so.” Yeah, right!
I’m sorry, but I’m the type of person who believes that if you want me to listen to what you have to say, then even if we disagree, you owe me the same respect. Now ladies, correct me if I’m wrong here, but I don’t know any men who can listen to what you are saying while they are watching TV, playing video games or typing on their Blackberry. Do you?
Effective political leaders know that politics is the art of compromise and that compromises cannot be forged if you won’t listen or show respect for your opponents’ positions. But last Wednesday, my party’s two brightest rising stars in Washington showed they had no respect for the opinions of our nation’s President. So because my party’s current leaders are focused on harnessing public anger to win election instead of addressing America’s problems, they have also shown that they are incapable of running our country. And that’s a very shameful thing for a life long Republican to have to admit!
Next week I’ll discuss the health of healthcare in America.
Charles Laffiteau is a US Republican from Dallas, Texas who is pursuing a PhD in International Relations and lectures on Contemporary US Business & Society at DCU.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Time to Get Honest
The Bigger Picture
Published on September 17th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I had originally written a column for this week that discussed my impressions about the nationally televised speech on healthcare reform that I watched President Obama deliver to a joint session of the US Congress and the American public last week.
But at the end of the day I just couldn’t bring myself to submit it to my editor. Why? Because it wasn’t really an honest opinion column about what I heard and saw on TV last Wednesday night. Mind you I didn’t fabricate anything or express any opinions in that column that weren’t sincere. It wasn’t honest because I wasn’t acknowledging the things I had seen and heard that night which most disconcerted me. So today I deleted it.
As many of you are no doubt aware, I am a lifelong member of the United States Republican Party. I joined the Republican Party while I was still in high school; before I was even allowed to legally vote in a state or national election. Through the years I have raised money for and campaigned on behalf of numerous Republican Party candidates for local, state and national offices. I haven’t always liked or agreed with many of the positions taken by Republican politicians I have supported, but I have also never voted for a Republican candidate simply because they were a member of the party.
Like many of you and many of my fellow American citizens, I have always tried to put the needs of my state or country ahead of partisan politics. I take our freedom to vote for the people we want as our political and government leaders very seriously because many of our global brethren don’t have the same freedom to elect their leaders that we have. Our democratic freedoms aren’t rights; they are privileges! That is why we have both a duty to exercise our right to vote and a responsibility to vote for candidates we believe are best suited for the job, regardless of their political party affiliations.
My own personal sense of responsibility to vote for the person best suited for the political office is what has led me to support and vote for Democratic, Independent and 3rd Party political candidates from time to time. And although I was both an early and fervent supporter of Barack Obama when he became a candidate for US President on 10 February 2007, I didn’t actually vote for him in the 4 March 2008 Super Tuesday Texas state primary. I cast my absentee ballot for Senator John McCain on that day.
I did so because I am still a registered member of the Republican Party and as such, I had a duty to vote in the Republican primary and a responsibility to vote for the Republican candidate best suited for America’s highest elected office. I did so knowing that President Obama needed my vote more than Senator McCain because he was in a very tight race with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, while Senator McCain had already clinched the Republican Party Presidential nomination. I did so because I had no intention of leaving the Republican Party even though I was campaigning for President Obama and would subsequently vote for him in the November 2008 General Election.
I have been a frequent and vocal critic of state and national Republican Party political office holders as well as many of the party’s political positions on foreign and domestic policies for some time now. But I have never been ashamed to acknowledge my Republican Party affiliation or the fact that I bear some responsibility for the mistakes Republican Party leaders made while they controlled the reins of political power in the US. I was part of the minority of Americans who voted Bush and Cheney into office back in 2000 and I was very pleased that the party was in control of the US Congress as well.
But for the first time in my life, last Wednesday night I was ashamed to acknowledge that I was a member of the Republican Party. Although I have been very upset with the Republican Party because it supported the decision to invade Iraq and it implemented fiscally irresponsible policies while it controlled Congress, I have never once shied away from the fact that I am also a lifelong member of it. Until now that is.
The reason why the original column that I had written for publication today wasn’t honest was because I had avoided any mention of this in it. But the real reason I wasn’t satisfied with the original column and never submitted it wasn’t because of my concern about being honest with my readers; it was because I couldn’t be honest with you until I first got honest with myself. And me being honest with me is easier said than done.
So what exactly happened last Wednesday night that caused me to initiate some serious soul searching as regards my long held political affiliation with the Republican Party? Well back in the states the news media has focused on an unseemly outburst by a Republican Congressional Representative from the great state of South Carolina. As you may or may not know, South Carolina is also the home state of an embattled Republican governor who has become more famous for his romantic prose than his political prose.
But I was watching President Obama speak when South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson began yelling “You lie!” at our President during his health care speech and the truth is, it didn’t really disturb me that much. While I do remember thinking that the outburst was rude and discourteous, I wasn’t exactly shocked by Representative Wilson’s behavior given the oft times contentious behavior I have seen displayed by other politicians both Republicans and Democrats.
President Obama handled it well too. He paused and calmly but firmly responded “No that isn’t true” and then resumed delivering his speech. No, it was something more subtle that led to my feelings of shame that I’ll discuss next week.
Published on September 17th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I had originally written a column for this week that discussed my impressions about the nationally televised speech on healthcare reform that I watched President Obama deliver to a joint session of the US Congress and the American public last week.
But at the end of the day I just couldn’t bring myself to submit it to my editor. Why? Because it wasn’t really an honest opinion column about what I heard and saw on TV last Wednesday night. Mind you I didn’t fabricate anything or express any opinions in that column that weren’t sincere. It wasn’t honest because I wasn’t acknowledging the things I had seen and heard that night which most disconcerted me. So today I deleted it.
As many of you are no doubt aware, I am a lifelong member of the United States Republican Party. I joined the Republican Party while I was still in high school; before I was even allowed to legally vote in a state or national election. Through the years I have raised money for and campaigned on behalf of numerous Republican Party candidates for local, state and national offices. I haven’t always liked or agreed with many of the positions taken by Republican politicians I have supported, but I have also never voted for a Republican candidate simply because they were a member of the party.
Like many of you and many of my fellow American citizens, I have always tried to put the needs of my state or country ahead of partisan politics. I take our freedom to vote for the people we want as our political and government leaders very seriously because many of our global brethren don’t have the same freedom to elect their leaders that we have. Our democratic freedoms aren’t rights; they are privileges! That is why we have both a duty to exercise our right to vote and a responsibility to vote for candidates we believe are best suited for the job, regardless of their political party affiliations.
My own personal sense of responsibility to vote for the person best suited for the political office is what has led me to support and vote for Democratic, Independent and 3rd Party political candidates from time to time. And although I was both an early and fervent supporter of Barack Obama when he became a candidate for US President on 10 February 2007, I didn’t actually vote for him in the 4 March 2008 Super Tuesday Texas state primary. I cast my absentee ballot for Senator John McCain on that day.
I did so because I am still a registered member of the Republican Party and as such, I had a duty to vote in the Republican primary and a responsibility to vote for the Republican candidate best suited for America’s highest elected office. I did so knowing that President Obama needed my vote more than Senator McCain because he was in a very tight race with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, while Senator McCain had already clinched the Republican Party Presidential nomination. I did so because I had no intention of leaving the Republican Party even though I was campaigning for President Obama and would subsequently vote for him in the November 2008 General Election.
I have been a frequent and vocal critic of state and national Republican Party political office holders as well as many of the party’s political positions on foreign and domestic policies for some time now. But I have never been ashamed to acknowledge my Republican Party affiliation or the fact that I bear some responsibility for the mistakes Republican Party leaders made while they controlled the reins of political power in the US. I was part of the minority of Americans who voted Bush and Cheney into office back in 2000 and I was very pleased that the party was in control of the US Congress as well.
But for the first time in my life, last Wednesday night I was ashamed to acknowledge that I was a member of the Republican Party. Although I have been very upset with the Republican Party because it supported the decision to invade Iraq and it implemented fiscally irresponsible policies while it controlled Congress, I have never once shied away from the fact that I am also a lifelong member of it. Until now that is.
The reason why the original column that I had written for publication today wasn’t honest was because I had avoided any mention of this in it. But the real reason I wasn’t satisfied with the original column and never submitted it wasn’t because of my concern about being honest with my readers; it was because I couldn’t be honest with you until I first got honest with myself. And me being honest with me is easier said than done.
So what exactly happened last Wednesday night that caused me to initiate some serious soul searching as regards my long held political affiliation with the Republican Party? Well back in the states the news media has focused on an unseemly outburst by a Republican Congressional Representative from the great state of South Carolina. As you may or may not know, South Carolina is also the home state of an embattled Republican governor who has become more famous for his romantic prose than his political prose.
But I was watching President Obama speak when South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson began yelling “You lie!” at our President during his health care speech and the truth is, it didn’t really disturb me that much. While I do remember thinking that the outburst was rude and discourteous, I wasn’t exactly shocked by Representative Wilson’s behavior given the oft times contentious behavior I have seen displayed by other politicians both Republicans and Democrats.
President Obama handled it well too. He paused and calmly but firmly responded “No that isn’t true” and then resumed delivering his speech. No, it was something more subtle that led to my feelings of shame that I’ll discuss next week.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Goodbye Teddy Kennedy
The Bigger Picture
Published on September 10th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Today I want to pick up where I left off last week and my discussion of the role that Ted Kennedy’s grandfathers played in his political education.
Whereas John and Robert Kennedy possessed formidable oratorical skills and relished political campaigning like their maternal grandfather, Honey Fitz, Ted was more like his grandfather P.J. While Ted also had excellent oratorical skills, he was much more comfortable dealing with people and politicians alike on a one to one basis than he was making lofty and inspiring speeches to crowds of supporters. His grandfathers schooled young Ted in the art of shaking hands and never forgetting a face but also taught him to remember he had a duty and responsibility to help those less fortunate than himself.
But it wasn’t until after he lost the 1980 Democratic Presidential nomination to President Jimmy Carter, that Ted Kennedy’s considerable talents as an able politician and true public servant became apparent. Ted Kennedy recruited and hired the best and brightest people for his legislative staff and they wanted to work for him because he also had a reputation for working with his political opponents to get things done. The list of Ted’s former staff members who serve in government reads like a Who’s Who of public servants from Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to Obama Presidential advisors like Melody Barnes, President Obama's top domestic policy adviser and White House Counsel Gregory Craig, with nary a whiff of scandal touching any of Ted’s staffers.
But the real mark of Ted Kennedy as a man and as a true public servant was his common touch and willingness to always help those less fortunate than he. Most of the 70,000 people who stood in line for hours last week to say goodbye to him at the John F. Kennedy Memorial Library in Cambridge Massachusetts, were just ordinary people whose lives Ted had touched and enriched during his public life.
Among them was a man named Jud Fokum, a native of Cameroon who had once asked Ted for assistance while he was a student in the US. Jud’s dilemma was that his US college tuition and living expenses were tied up in red tape back in Cameroon, so he asked if Senator Ted Kennedy would be willing to help him even though he wasn’t a US citizen or a Massachusetts voter. A few days later, after Ted Kennedy had placed a phone call to the President of Cameroon, Jud received his long delayed university funds.
Imagine that, a wealthy and powerful politician taking the time to help someone, in this case a foreign national, anonymously and with absolutely no tangible political or financial benefit for himself in doing so. Jud Fokum’s story is only one of the hundreds about Ted Kennedy that I personally know of and rest assured there are thousands more like it that I haven’t heard or that the general public will never know about.
While I was opposed to more of Ted Kennedy’s political positions than I ever favoured, much like John McCain I have always regarded him as one of the most able politicians and admirable men ever elected to political office in America. But more than that, Ted Kennedy was also one of the most honorable and giving persons I have ever known. He had his faults and he made a lot of mistakes during the course of his lifetime, but then who of us doesn’t have some faults or hasn’t made any number of mistakes?
Getting his sons elected President was important to Joe Kennedy because of what he believed election to this office would mean for his sons, but also because of what their election would mean to him, his family and the general public’s image of his family. His son John was elected President and Robert could very well have also been elected but for his untimely assassination during his first Presidential campaign. But I am of the opinion that the most important legacy for the Kennedy family was the type of life that was led by the only son of Joe who was soundly defeated the one time he ran for US President.
Ted Kennedy accepted this defeat with grace and dignity and then went on to have a decidedly positive impact on the lives of millions of Americans. During the course of his 47 years as a legislator, Ted Kennedy introduced 2,500 bills and saw more than 550 of them enacted into law. Nor was he content to just get his name on a law and then move on to new legislation. He was always open to revisiting laws he had already passed and revising or improving them because he believed that lasting progress only comes in half steps. He spent his life fighting for universal healthcare and although he didn’t accomplish this goal he was able to make some headway with his program for pregnant women and new mothers that now covers 8.7 million working class women and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which now covers more than 7 million children.
As for the Kennedy family legacy, as the sole surviving male, Ted served as the family’s patriarch and as a surrogate father to his fatherless nieces and nephews for over 40 years. The fact that virtually all of Joe Kennedy’s 30 grandchildren are currently involved in some form of public service work is both a reflection of the example Ted set as the Kennedy family’s patriarch and the values he helped instill in those grandchildren. That Ted Kennedy’s funeral attracted the kind of media attention that only attends those who have served as America’s President is a testament to Ted’s life of service to those less fortunate than him. I will end this column with a limerick I wrote about Ted;
The Kennedy children numbered one less than ten,
Their parents instilled a duty to serve in them.
But of all of their children who answered this call,
Ted’s service to others was the greatest of all.
Published on September 10th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Today I want to pick up where I left off last week and my discussion of the role that Ted Kennedy’s grandfathers played in his political education.
Whereas John and Robert Kennedy possessed formidable oratorical skills and relished political campaigning like their maternal grandfather, Honey Fitz, Ted was more like his grandfather P.J. While Ted also had excellent oratorical skills, he was much more comfortable dealing with people and politicians alike on a one to one basis than he was making lofty and inspiring speeches to crowds of supporters. His grandfathers schooled young Ted in the art of shaking hands and never forgetting a face but also taught him to remember he had a duty and responsibility to help those less fortunate than himself.
But it wasn’t until after he lost the 1980 Democratic Presidential nomination to President Jimmy Carter, that Ted Kennedy’s considerable talents as an able politician and true public servant became apparent. Ted Kennedy recruited and hired the best and brightest people for his legislative staff and they wanted to work for him because he also had a reputation for working with his political opponents to get things done. The list of Ted’s former staff members who serve in government reads like a Who’s Who of public servants from Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to Obama Presidential advisors like Melody Barnes, President Obama's top domestic policy adviser and White House Counsel Gregory Craig, with nary a whiff of scandal touching any of Ted’s staffers.
But the real mark of Ted Kennedy as a man and as a true public servant was his common touch and willingness to always help those less fortunate than he. Most of the 70,000 people who stood in line for hours last week to say goodbye to him at the John F. Kennedy Memorial Library in Cambridge Massachusetts, were just ordinary people whose lives Ted had touched and enriched during his public life.
Among them was a man named Jud Fokum, a native of Cameroon who had once asked Ted for assistance while he was a student in the US. Jud’s dilemma was that his US college tuition and living expenses were tied up in red tape back in Cameroon, so he asked if Senator Ted Kennedy would be willing to help him even though he wasn’t a US citizen or a Massachusetts voter. A few days later, after Ted Kennedy had placed a phone call to the President of Cameroon, Jud received his long delayed university funds.
Imagine that, a wealthy and powerful politician taking the time to help someone, in this case a foreign national, anonymously and with absolutely no tangible political or financial benefit for himself in doing so. Jud Fokum’s story is only one of the hundreds about Ted Kennedy that I personally know of and rest assured there are thousands more like it that I haven’t heard or that the general public will never know about.
While I was opposed to more of Ted Kennedy’s political positions than I ever favoured, much like John McCain I have always regarded him as one of the most able politicians and admirable men ever elected to political office in America. But more than that, Ted Kennedy was also one of the most honorable and giving persons I have ever known. He had his faults and he made a lot of mistakes during the course of his lifetime, but then who of us doesn’t have some faults or hasn’t made any number of mistakes?
Getting his sons elected President was important to Joe Kennedy because of what he believed election to this office would mean for his sons, but also because of what their election would mean to him, his family and the general public’s image of his family. His son John was elected President and Robert could very well have also been elected but for his untimely assassination during his first Presidential campaign. But I am of the opinion that the most important legacy for the Kennedy family was the type of life that was led by the only son of Joe who was soundly defeated the one time he ran for US President.
Ted Kennedy accepted this defeat with grace and dignity and then went on to have a decidedly positive impact on the lives of millions of Americans. During the course of his 47 years as a legislator, Ted Kennedy introduced 2,500 bills and saw more than 550 of them enacted into law. Nor was he content to just get his name on a law and then move on to new legislation. He was always open to revisiting laws he had already passed and revising or improving them because he believed that lasting progress only comes in half steps. He spent his life fighting for universal healthcare and although he didn’t accomplish this goal he was able to make some headway with his program for pregnant women and new mothers that now covers 8.7 million working class women and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which now covers more than 7 million children.
As for the Kennedy family legacy, as the sole surviving male, Ted served as the family’s patriarch and as a surrogate father to his fatherless nieces and nephews for over 40 years. The fact that virtually all of Joe Kennedy’s 30 grandchildren are currently involved in some form of public service work is both a reflection of the example Ted set as the Kennedy family’s patriarch and the values he helped instill in those grandchildren. That Ted Kennedy’s funeral attracted the kind of media attention that only attends those who have served as America’s President is a testament to Ted’s life of service to those less fortunate than him. I will end this column with a limerick I wrote about Ted;
The Kennedy children numbered one less than ten,
Their parents instilled a duty to serve in them.
But of all of their children who answered this call,
Ted’s service to others was the greatest of all.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Ted Kennedy's passing
The Bigger Picture
Published on September 3rd in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Have you ever planned to do, or maybe write, about something and then something happens that makes what you were planning to do or write about seem insignificant? Well that is exactly what happened to me this week. I’d like to say the column I planned to write for today will appear next week instead, but I can’t say for certain. Truth be known, it is entirely possible that column will never get written.
Why? Because as I write this an American political icon, Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy, the “Last Lion in the Senate”, is being laid to rest near the graves of his brothers, Robert and John at Arlington National Cemetery. But the man who gave Ted this moniker during last year’s heated Presidential contest, wasn’t President Obama, it was Republican Presidential candidate John McCain. McCain said Kennedy was the “last lion in the Senate because he remains the single most effective member of the Senate.”
Ted was also the lone surviving son of Joseph (Joe) P. Kennedy and Rose Fitzgerald, but he learned more about the art of politics from his two grandfathers, East Boston “backroom” political boss P. J. Kennedy and Boston Mayor John “Honey Fitz” Fitzgerald, than he did from his powerful and politically connected father. But in order to understand the role that Ted Kennedy has played in America’s recent political history, its equally important that one understands the history of America’s most famous family.
P.J. Kennedy and “Honey Fitz” were both sons of Irish immigrants who left Ireland during the potato famine and immigrated to America. Honey Fitz got involved in Democratic Party politics shortly after he dropped out of Harvard Medical School. Honey Fitz was a stylish showman with a gift of gab and warmth of character that in turn led to his nickname, Honey Fitz. In other words, Honey Fitz was a natural politician, so it wasn’t long before he became the most recognizable Irish-American on Boston’s North End. Honey Fitz also loved to make speeches that were often referred to as “Fitzblarney” and that got him elected Boston’s mayor 3 times around the turn of the twentieth century.
On the other hand, P. J. Kennedy’s involvement in politics came much later in his career because he had been forced to leave school at the age of 14 to support his widowed mother and sisters as a dockworker. P. J. then used the money he saved from this job to buy a saloon on Haymarket Square and launch his career in the liquor business. Before he was thirty his liquor importing business, P.J. Kennedy and Co. was the largest in Boston.
P.J. also had a reputation for giving money and advice to less fortunate Irish emigrants, which made him very popular and respected in the East Boston ward where he lived and worked. This popularity and respect led to P.J.’s involvement in politics and he was subsequently elected to 5 terms in the Massachusetts House of Representatives and 3 more terms in the Massachusetts Senate.
But in contrast to Honey Fitz, P.J. Kennedy didn’t really like all the campaigning and speech making required of politicians. P.J. was much more at home with the backroom wheeling and dealing of ward politics so after he left the Massachusetts Senate in 1896, he spent the remainder of his political career as the Democratic political boss of Boston’s Ward 2 and in appointed positions as elections and fire commissioner.
Joseph Kennedy was P.J.’s eldest child and only son and thanks to P.J.’s business success, Joe was able to get the education that P.J. never had an opportunity to get. Although Joe never started a business from scratch like his father did, Joe nonetheless proved to be a savvy business entrepreneur and financial investor with a keen eye for value. Joe first used his financial expertise and insider information to make a small fortune for him and his Irish-American colleagues during the 1920’s stock market boom. Then, unlike most other wealthy Americans, Joe vastly increased the Kennedy family’s wealth during the Depression years through his investments in real estate.
Joe was a friend and prominent supporter of President Franklin Roosevelt but cut short his own political career when, as America’s British Ambassador, he advocated negotiating with Hitler and disparaged Britain’s fight against the Nazi’s by telling the Boston Globe that “Democracy is finished in England. It may be here.” A political pariah, Joe subsequently devoted himself and his fortune to promoting the political career of his eldest son, Joe Jr. But after Joe Jr.’s untimely death during World War II, Joe Sr. only became more determined to see both of his remaining eldest sons, John and Robert become President of the United States. As a result, Joe’s youngest son Ted spent most of his time learning about politics from his grandfathers, rather than his Dad and brothers.
When Ted’s father, Joe, married his mother, Rose, the eldest daughter of Boston’s most recognizable politician in 1914, the marriage also resulted in the merging of Boston’s two most powerful political families. While this Boston political union and the influence of Irish-American politicians in Chicago, New York, Pittsburg, Philadelphia and New Jersey coupled with Joe Sr.’s considerable financial resources definitely aided John and Robert in their respective bids to become US President, it was Joe Sr.’s often overlooked youngest son, Ted, who I believe benefitted most from his two grandfathers accumulated wisdom borne of their many years of political experience.
The funeral is about to begin so I must now take my leave and join millions of my fellow Americans who will say goodbye to a true statesmen and one of the greatest American legislators of all time. Some of these Americans are the poor he tried to help while others are wealthy or famous, but most of them are just ordinary American citizens, a testament to Ted Kennedy’s common touch. I will conclude my thoughts about Ted Kennedy, his legacy and America’s most famous family in next week’s column.
Published on September 3rd in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Have you ever planned to do, or maybe write, about something and then something happens that makes what you were planning to do or write about seem insignificant? Well that is exactly what happened to me this week. I’d like to say the column I planned to write for today will appear next week instead, but I can’t say for certain. Truth be known, it is entirely possible that column will never get written.
Why? Because as I write this an American political icon, Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy, the “Last Lion in the Senate”, is being laid to rest near the graves of his brothers, Robert and John at Arlington National Cemetery. But the man who gave Ted this moniker during last year’s heated Presidential contest, wasn’t President Obama, it was Republican Presidential candidate John McCain. McCain said Kennedy was the “last lion in the Senate because he remains the single most effective member of the Senate.”
Ted was also the lone surviving son of Joseph (Joe) P. Kennedy and Rose Fitzgerald, but he learned more about the art of politics from his two grandfathers, East Boston “backroom” political boss P. J. Kennedy and Boston Mayor John “Honey Fitz” Fitzgerald, than he did from his powerful and politically connected father. But in order to understand the role that Ted Kennedy has played in America’s recent political history, its equally important that one understands the history of America’s most famous family.
P.J. Kennedy and “Honey Fitz” were both sons of Irish immigrants who left Ireland during the potato famine and immigrated to America. Honey Fitz got involved in Democratic Party politics shortly after he dropped out of Harvard Medical School. Honey Fitz was a stylish showman with a gift of gab and warmth of character that in turn led to his nickname, Honey Fitz. In other words, Honey Fitz was a natural politician, so it wasn’t long before he became the most recognizable Irish-American on Boston’s North End. Honey Fitz also loved to make speeches that were often referred to as “Fitzblarney” and that got him elected Boston’s mayor 3 times around the turn of the twentieth century.
On the other hand, P. J. Kennedy’s involvement in politics came much later in his career because he had been forced to leave school at the age of 14 to support his widowed mother and sisters as a dockworker. P. J. then used the money he saved from this job to buy a saloon on Haymarket Square and launch his career in the liquor business. Before he was thirty his liquor importing business, P.J. Kennedy and Co. was the largest in Boston.
P.J. also had a reputation for giving money and advice to less fortunate Irish emigrants, which made him very popular and respected in the East Boston ward where he lived and worked. This popularity and respect led to P.J.’s involvement in politics and he was subsequently elected to 5 terms in the Massachusetts House of Representatives and 3 more terms in the Massachusetts Senate.
But in contrast to Honey Fitz, P.J. Kennedy didn’t really like all the campaigning and speech making required of politicians. P.J. was much more at home with the backroom wheeling and dealing of ward politics so after he left the Massachusetts Senate in 1896, he spent the remainder of his political career as the Democratic political boss of Boston’s Ward 2 and in appointed positions as elections and fire commissioner.
Joseph Kennedy was P.J.’s eldest child and only son and thanks to P.J.’s business success, Joe was able to get the education that P.J. never had an opportunity to get. Although Joe never started a business from scratch like his father did, Joe nonetheless proved to be a savvy business entrepreneur and financial investor with a keen eye for value. Joe first used his financial expertise and insider information to make a small fortune for him and his Irish-American colleagues during the 1920’s stock market boom. Then, unlike most other wealthy Americans, Joe vastly increased the Kennedy family’s wealth during the Depression years through his investments in real estate.
Joe was a friend and prominent supporter of President Franklin Roosevelt but cut short his own political career when, as America’s British Ambassador, he advocated negotiating with Hitler and disparaged Britain’s fight against the Nazi’s by telling the Boston Globe that “Democracy is finished in England. It may be here.” A political pariah, Joe subsequently devoted himself and his fortune to promoting the political career of his eldest son, Joe Jr. But after Joe Jr.’s untimely death during World War II, Joe Sr. only became more determined to see both of his remaining eldest sons, John and Robert become President of the United States. As a result, Joe’s youngest son Ted spent most of his time learning about politics from his grandfathers, rather than his Dad and brothers.
When Ted’s father, Joe, married his mother, Rose, the eldest daughter of Boston’s most recognizable politician in 1914, the marriage also resulted in the merging of Boston’s two most powerful political families. While this Boston political union and the influence of Irish-American politicians in Chicago, New York, Pittsburg, Philadelphia and New Jersey coupled with Joe Sr.’s considerable financial resources definitely aided John and Robert in their respective bids to become US President, it was Joe Sr.’s often overlooked youngest son, Ted, who I believe benefitted most from his two grandfathers accumulated wisdom borne of their many years of political experience.
The funeral is about to begin so I must now take my leave and join millions of my fellow Americans who will say goodbye to a true statesmen and one of the greatest American legislators of all time. Some of these Americans are the poor he tried to help while others are wealthy or famous, but most of them are just ordinary American citizens, a testament to Ted Kennedy’s common touch. I will conclude my thoughts about Ted Kennedy, his legacy and America’s most famous family in next week’s column.
What we can and should do as individual citizens
The Bigger Picture
Published on August 27th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Today I want to bring a temporary end to my dialogue about climate change by discussing what steps we and our political leaders should be taking to try to avert the worst consequences of this looming environmental catastrophe.
Make no mistake; while I know some skeptics still remain out there, the world is already beginning to suffer the ill effects of climate change due to rising global temperatures. The only real question is how long we as consumers as well as our political leaders will wait until we take action to avert the most catastrophic environmental and economic consequences of climate change.
Both we, as individuals, and our governments must make some difficult choices in the coming years. We can either continue to avoid voluntary steps to conserve energy and government policies that raise the price of fossil fuel derived products like petrol, electricity and plastics; or we can be forced to implement even more draconian measures a decade or so from now. Since I rather like the idea of having the freedom to choose what to do for relatively little additional cost, rather than being forced to do something at a much higher price later, here are a few suggestions for us and our political leaders.
1) Park the car and use public transport whenever and wherever possible.
While not all citizens have public transportation options like buses and trains available to them, it is completely irresponsible for those that do have such options to continue to use cars or SUVs to get to school or work. Sell that second or third car you own and start sharing the use of the family car. Plan your errands so that you make a single trip to multiple stores every few days. Sure it may be a bit inconvenient at times, but you can also console yourself by thinking about how much money you are saving every week by doing so. Then make sure you vote and campaign for politicians who want to invest more money in public transport.
I have a car but I only use it to drive out of the city and or to places where public transport is scant or unavailable. I plan trips into town so that I do my shopping in conjunction other errands thus minimizing the number of days I use my bus pass.
2) Push political leaders to change the way annual motor taxes are computed.
Since vehicles with larger engines usually use more petrol per kilometer traveled, a motor tax based on a vehicle’s engine size is a step in the right direction, but is at best only a half measure in terms of cutting carbon emissions. While this tax basis does encourage people to purchase more fuel efficient cars with smaller engines, it doesn’t provide all drivers with an incentive to cut down the number of kilometers they drive. But if the motor tax was computed based on the estimated carbon emissions per kilometer of a particular car engine and the number of kilometers travelled the previous year, then every car owner would have an incentive to reduce the kilometers they drive each year. If a person lives in an area without access to public transport, then they should receive a credit that will reduce their motor tax. But if someone living in a city with access to public transport elects to continue driving, why should we pay for the costs of environmental consequences associated with their carbon emissions?
3) Conserve electricity and get ready to pay more for what you do use.
It isn’t a matter of if we will start paying carbon taxes for the fossil fuel energy we use, only when and how much. Driving less reduces our petrol costs and the carbon taxes that will be placed on petrol. But since most of our carbon emissions are the result of electricity generated by coal, oil and gas; one should expect that carbon taxes will impact our costs for electricity as much, if not more, than petrol. Turning off lights and computers or buying more energy efficient appliances is a start; but what about that dishwasher and TV? Since dishwashers and TVs are the biggest users of electricity in most homes, what is wrong with families learning how to use the dishwasher less and sharing the use of one or two less TV sets?
4) Push politicians to base any carbon taxes on calculations of the minimum electricity needed to maintain an average household of 2, 4, 6 and 8 adults.
Pensioners and households that hold their use below these thresholds would get an energy credit, while those who live in large mansions and use lots of energy will pay more per kilowatt in carbon taxes for using more electricity than the minimum they need. This gives everyone an incentive to conserve energy but only financially penalizes those who continue to waste electricity.
5) Use less paper and plastic and recycle what you do use.
Pulp and paper producers are responsible for most of the carbon emissions due to the tropical deforestation which is occurring in Southeast Asia. But you can reduce demand for paper through recycling and many companies will pay you to stop sending you their bills by mail. Manufacturing plastics adds to global carbon emissions so making consumers pay for plastic shopping bags is a step in the right direction. But we also need to expand this tax to all plastic bottles or containers and get much better at recycling plastics so we can reduce production of them.
6) Eat more fresh vegetables and consume less meat.
Clearing tropical rainforests in favor of grazing land for cattle or for growing soybeans that are used for cattle feed and producing biofuel is a huge contributor to carbon emissions from the Amazon region of South America. I save money and eat healthier by consuming more veggies and reducing my meat expenditures.
Now ask yourself; “What actions will I tell my children I took to prevent climate change”?
Published on August 27th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Today I want to bring a temporary end to my dialogue about climate change by discussing what steps we and our political leaders should be taking to try to avert the worst consequences of this looming environmental catastrophe.
Make no mistake; while I know some skeptics still remain out there, the world is already beginning to suffer the ill effects of climate change due to rising global temperatures. The only real question is how long we as consumers as well as our political leaders will wait until we take action to avert the most catastrophic environmental and economic consequences of climate change.
Both we, as individuals, and our governments must make some difficult choices in the coming years. We can either continue to avoid voluntary steps to conserve energy and government policies that raise the price of fossil fuel derived products like petrol, electricity and plastics; or we can be forced to implement even more draconian measures a decade or so from now. Since I rather like the idea of having the freedom to choose what to do for relatively little additional cost, rather than being forced to do something at a much higher price later, here are a few suggestions for us and our political leaders.
1) Park the car and use public transport whenever and wherever possible.
While not all citizens have public transportation options like buses and trains available to them, it is completely irresponsible for those that do have such options to continue to use cars or SUVs to get to school or work. Sell that second or third car you own and start sharing the use of the family car. Plan your errands so that you make a single trip to multiple stores every few days. Sure it may be a bit inconvenient at times, but you can also console yourself by thinking about how much money you are saving every week by doing so. Then make sure you vote and campaign for politicians who want to invest more money in public transport.
I have a car but I only use it to drive out of the city and or to places where public transport is scant or unavailable. I plan trips into town so that I do my shopping in conjunction other errands thus minimizing the number of days I use my bus pass.
2) Push political leaders to change the way annual motor taxes are computed.
Since vehicles with larger engines usually use more petrol per kilometer traveled, a motor tax based on a vehicle’s engine size is a step in the right direction, but is at best only a half measure in terms of cutting carbon emissions. While this tax basis does encourage people to purchase more fuel efficient cars with smaller engines, it doesn’t provide all drivers with an incentive to cut down the number of kilometers they drive. But if the motor tax was computed based on the estimated carbon emissions per kilometer of a particular car engine and the number of kilometers travelled the previous year, then every car owner would have an incentive to reduce the kilometers they drive each year. If a person lives in an area without access to public transport, then they should receive a credit that will reduce their motor tax. But if someone living in a city with access to public transport elects to continue driving, why should we pay for the costs of environmental consequences associated with their carbon emissions?
3) Conserve electricity and get ready to pay more for what you do use.
It isn’t a matter of if we will start paying carbon taxes for the fossil fuel energy we use, only when and how much. Driving less reduces our petrol costs and the carbon taxes that will be placed on petrol. But since most of our carbon emissions are the result of electricity generated by coal, oil and gas; one should expect that carbon taxes will impact our costs for electricity as much, if not more, than petrol. Turning off lights and computers or buying more energy efficient appliances is a start; but what about that dishwasher and TV? Since dishwashers and TVs are the biggest users of electricity in most homes, what is wrong with families learning how to use the dishwasher less and sharing the use of one or two less TV sets?
4) Push politicians to base any carbon taxes on calculations of the minimum electricity needed to maintain an average household of 2, 4, 6 and 8 adults.
Pensioners and households that hold their use below these thresholds would get an energy credit, while those who live in large mansions and use lots of energy will pay more per kilowatt in carbon taxes for using more electricity than the minimum they need. This gives everyone an incentive to conserve energy but only financially penalizes those who continue to waste electricity.
5) Use less paper and plastic and recycle what you do use.
Pulp and paper producers are responsible for most of the carbon emissions due to the tropical deforestation which is occurring in Southeast Asia. But you can reduce demand for paper through recycling and many companies will pay you to stop sending you their bills by mail. Manufacturing plastics adds to global carbon emissions so making consumers pay for plastic shopping bags is a step in the right direction. But we also need to expand this tax to all plastic bottles or containers and get much better at recycling plastics so we can reduce production of them.
6) Eat more fresh vegetables and consume less meat.
Clearing tropical rainforests in favor of grazing land for cattle or for growing soybeans that are used for cattle feed and producing biofuel is a huge contributor to carbon emissions from the Amazon region of South America. I save money and eat healthier by consuming more veggies and reducing my meat expenditures.
Now ask yourself; “What actions will I tell my children I took to prevent climate change”?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
